Thread: Fucking crypto-homophobes Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026305

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I'm fed up with any mention of gay rights getting swamped by not only the obvious homophobes but the fucking "concern" trolls waving their wimpy little privileged "concern" dicks around. I don't give a shit about your "concerns" that churches might be forced to conduct gay marriages, because they're bullshit. They're an excuse for not owning up to your own homophobia and still getting to oppose equal marriage. On that score fuck the Evangelical Alliance and their fellow travellers in "Scotland for marriage" who got one of our extremely elderly elders handing out leaflets on the steps of the church while our minister is away on long term sick and unable to object. Every single backer of that pestilential organisation opposed every single advance in rights for gay people and their arguments are disingenuous, dishonest sophistry.

As for the homophobic fuckers acting as apologists for the Russian government and trying to use democracy as a shield to defend their vile actions and engaging in whataboutery to try and distract attention: when you've finished having tea with Mr. Tumnus, kindly go and suck the dick you clearly so desperately crave.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
As for the homophobic fuckers acting as apologists for the Russian government and trying to use democracy as a shield to defend their vile actions and engaging in whataboutery to try and distract attention: when you've finished having tea with Mr. Tumnus, kindly go and suck the dick you clearly so desperately crave.

Sorry was this directed at me?

Please say it was so I can turn around and put you in your place over oh so many different points you make, because evidently the ability to remember information is not one of your strongest points.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
It may not have been about you, fucknuts, but since you so kindly have painted a large target on your bum, it is now.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It probably WAS about you anyway. Having seen Dead Horses.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
So, dear S&M, please assume it was you and respond. I would love to hear what you have to say.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Me too.

("S&M"? Ha!)
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Consults crystal ball/

He's about to pull the 'I'm gay, so I'm not homophobic' card for his whataboutery.

In his case, I think it's a bit of conservative posing to avoid having to identify with those nasty 'lefties' demanding a boycott.

So not homophobia, I'd guess but Toryphilia which has led to him being mistaken for an actual homophobe using 'dogwhistle' tactics. Which is kind of amusing actually and serves him right for his 'Look at me, I'm such a contrarian!' posting.

[ 15. August 2013, 00:13: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
S M is the saddest case, but there are others festering in Dead Horses like Mudfrog.

"I'm opposed to the goals of gay protest, but let me tell you that you're doing it all wrong and are hypocrites because you're focusing on a single issue for tactical reasons instead of protesting everything in the world especially non-gay issues I think are more important".

Why do people who are opposed to the goals think anyone cares about their opinion on right tactics to achieve the goals?
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Consults crystal ball/

He's about to pull the 'I'm gay, so I'm not homophobic' card for his whataboutery.

In his case, I think it's a bit of conservative posing to avoid having to identify with those nasty 'lefties' demanding a boycott.

So not homophobia, I'd guess but Toryphilia which has led to him being mistaken for an actual homophobe using 'dogwhistle' tactics. Which is kind of amusing actually and serves him right for his 'Look at me, I'm such a contrarian!' posting.

The SM Kiss the Whip Shtick is
"I am in favor of gay rights but not till the last homophobe in my church agrees it's ok. So for practical purposes count me as the most recalcitrant homophobe. Let me see how I can obstruct the discussion while claiming I'm in favor, but not yet..."
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

Why do people who are opposed to the goals think anyone cares about their opinion on right tactics to achieve the goals?

Privilege. No act has a meaning until they've approved or disapproved of it.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
You're all a bunch of idiots.
Until you learn the meaning of the word homophobia I shan't respond.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Etymology is not meaning, Mudfrog.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia and I reject the allegation of hatred of homosexual people that is implied by its use against me.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
And Mt Arethosemyfeet, I'm so glad my children were not pupils of yours up there in the Hebrides! I would hate for them to be taught by a man of such limited vocabulary that he has to use such foul language in order to express his opinions and by doing so, reveal evident difficulties with anger management.

I hope your headmaster never reads the Ship of Fools

[ 15. August 2013, 13:20: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
1/5 of the posts in this thread are from someone who says he's not responding. I'm impressed.

[ 15. August 2013, 13:22: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia and I reject the allegation of hatred of homosexual people that is implied by its use against me.

Fine, I'll just call you a bigoted fuckwit whose views have no place in civilised society. Happy?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia and I reject the allegation of hatred of homosexual people that is implied by its use against me.

Well, I reject all the ridiculous nonsense you spouted in Dead Horses about marriage having changed from what you signed up for 28 years ago. I note that you don't seem to have bothered responding there to all the things that people said in reply, pointing out that you basically have decided that true, holy marriage consists of exactly what was in the laws of England in 1985, blithely ignoring the fact that most of the world didn't have the same laws.

It's that kind of post, bordering on hysterically illogical on your part, that really does make it sound like you're terribly afraid of the end of civilisation as we know it if a few queers are allowed to formally cohabit.

[ 15. August 2013, 13:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia and I reject the allegation of hatred of homosexual people that is implied by its use against me.

Fine, I'll just call you a bigoted fuckwit whose views have no place in civilised society. Happy?
Yup, me, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and millions of ordinary Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and yes, even gay people, who do not agree with same sex marriage.

I would return your compliment and call you an intolerant denier of freedom of speech.

[Razz]

I suggest that you recognise that there are people with a different view to yours. I suggest you just get over it. Protesting outside a closed church door that people don't agree with you, and that the vicar won't abandon all his beliefs in order to give you what you want and marry you, isn't going to win you the argument.

Neither will standing outside a mosque, synagogue or temple.

[ 15. August 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
I keep waiting for someone to drag out the "Hate the sin; love the sinner" routine.

"Hate the sin" = you do things that God hates and will not forgive until you stop doing them.

"Love the sinner" = ... but look at how Christian I am, how full of God's love, because I care for you and will pray for you no matter what."
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Alternatively, Mudfrog, you're obviously of that school of thought that thinks marriage is simply about having official permission to make babies. This happily means that - and I admit I'm making a bit of an assumption here - now that you've finished that task and the young ones have grown up, you and Mrs Mudfrog can part ways. Your duty's done. There's no reason for you to stay together anymore.

What's that? You want to stay together just because you love each other and have a committed relationship? Despite there being no children around?

WELL WHY YOU DON'T YOU GROW A FUCKING PAIR OF BRAIN CELLS AND REALISE THAT YOUR MARRIAGE IS NOW EXACTLY LIKE A GAY ONE, YOU TROGLODYTE MORON?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Amusingly, even on a text-based discussion forum, actions speak louder than words. Thus, even though you might assert that there is a total absence of fear or hatred in your amygdala, by arguing and defending fundamentally homophobic philosophy you functionally plant yourself securely within the borders of homophobia.

Choadchoker.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Alternatively, Mudfrog, you're obviously of that school of thought that thinks marriage is simply about having official permission to make babies. This happily means that - and I admit I'm making a bit of an assumption here - now that you've finished that task and the young ones have grown up, you and Mrs Mudfrog can part ways. Your duty's done. There's no reason for you to stay together anymore.

What's that? You want to stay together just because you love each other and have a committed relationship? Despite there being no children around?

WELL WHY YOU DON'T YOU GROW A FUCKING PAIR OF BRAIN CELLS AND REALISE THAT YOUR MARRIAGE IS NOW EXACTLY LIKE A GAY ONE, YOU TROGLODYTE MORON?

Because your assumption is indeed a false one.

Marriage is, of course the place for bringing children into the world, etc, but it is far more than that. Marriage is all about becoming 'one flesh' and homosexual relationships, not being a union of opposites, cannot be, according to the Bible 'one flesh'. Therefore, whatever else they might be (and I fully and unreservedly recognise civil partnerships) homosexual relationships cannot be marriages.

Not without changing the definition of marriage which does include the potential sexual element of 'one flesh'.

Once you remove the constituent parts of sexual consummation and sexual fidelity as necessary elements to a marriage - which the UK marriage bill does, then it is no longer marriage. And the simple reason that the bill has removed these things, ISTM, is that the committees could not decide after lengthy discussions what constituted homosexual sex.

[ 15. August 2013, 13:41: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
What's the betting Mudfrog wears poly-cotton shirts and eats shellfish?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
What's the betting Mudfrog wears poly-cotton shirts and eats shellfish?

No, but I know the difference between moral and ceremonial laws.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Marriage is all about becoming 'one flesh' and homosexual relationships, not being a union of opposites, cannot be, according to the Bible 'one flesh'.

They can if you're doing it right.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Amusingly, even on a text-based discussion forum, actions speak louder than words. Thus, even though you might assert that there is a total absence of fear or hatred in your amygdala, by arguing and defending fundamentally homophobic philosophy you functionally plant yourself securely within the borders of homophobia.

Choadchoker.

Interesting.

Sounds very Soviet. Like criticising the government proves I'm insane.

Very medieval too - denying I'm a witch automatically proves that I am one.

There can be no defence therefore, no rational discussion, because whatever I write, even using reasonable words, will automatically be seen as aggression, homophobic hysteria.

So, in your world everyone must agree with you because that is the only loving thing to do. Anyone with a different view, with a differently-informed conscience, with a different view of the bible and theology, is by definition homophobic.

How very tolerant of you.

...see, I can be sarcastic too [Biased]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Marriage is all about becoming 'one flesh' and homosexual relationships, not being a union of opposites, cannot be, according to the Bible 'one flesh'. Therefore, whatever else they might be (and I fully and unreservedly recognise civil partnerships) homosexual relationships cannot be marriages.

Not without changing the definition of marriage which does include the potential sexual element of 'one flesh'.

Once you remove the constituent parts of sexual consummation and sexual fidelity as necessary elements to a marriage - which the UK marriage bill does, then it is no longer marriage. And the simple reason that the bill has removed these things, ISTM, is that the committees could not decide after lengthy discussions what constituted homosexual sex.

Oh wow. Where to begin? With your flimsy Biblical exegesis? Or your wobbly legal understanding?

I'll go with the latter, because I'm on my own professional ground there. As I pointed out to you in Dead Horses - one of the things you haven't replied to - adultery as a ground for divorce hasn't existed in my own country for decades. So you think all marriages conducted in Australia - a country that only has heterosexual marriage - are invalid?

More importantly, the fact that adultery is a ground for divorce does not mean that sexual fidelity is a 'necessary element' of marriage. There are marriages where people can cope with an instance of adultery, whether happily or unhappily. It's only a ground for divorce if someone actually decides to file for divorce.

As for 'one flesh'... I'm sorry, I missed the part in biology class where gay sex always ends up with the bodies remaining separate, but married heterosexual sex causes them to glue together. Gee, maybe it's a metaphor? Maybe the whole passage talks about a partner and doesn't actually mention sex? Maybe when someone talks about being 'completed' by their partner, they're not suggesting that the only time this happens is when a penis and a vagina meet?

I'm fascinated by the whole idea that men and women are 'opposites' but that all men are the 'same' and that all 'women' are the same (readily interchangeable??), thereby meaning that the only way you could possibly be made complete by another person is if they have the right physical plumbing.

Soulmates? Pfft. Who knew that souls had genitals?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Marriage is all about becoming 'one flesh' and homosexual relationships, not being a union of opposites, cannot be, according to the Bible 'one flesh'. Therefore, whatever else they might be (and I fully and unreservedly recognise civil partnerships) homosexual relationships cannot be marriages.

Not without changing the definition of marriage which does include the potential sexual element of 'one flesh'.

Once you remove the constituent parts of sexual consummation and sexual fidelity as necessary elements to a marriage - which the UK marriage bill does, then it is no longer marriage. And the simple reason that the bill has removed these things, ISTM, is that the committees could not decide after lengthy discussions what constituted homosexual sex.

Oh wow. Where to begin? With your flimsy Biblical exegesis? Or your wobbly legal understanding?

I'll go with the latter, because I'm on my own professional ground there. As I pointed out to you in Dead Horses - one of the things you haven't replied to - adultery as a ground for divorce hasn't existed in my own country for decades. So you think all marriages conducted in Australia - a country that only has heterosexual marriage - are invalid?

More importantly, the fact that adultery is a ground for divorce does not mean that sexual fidelity is a 'necessary element' of marriage. There are marriages where people can cope with an instance of adultery, whether happily or unhappily. It's only a ground for divorce if someone actually decides to file for divorce.

As for 'one flesh'... I'm sorry, I missed the part in biology class where gay sex always ends up with the bodies remaining separate, but married heterosexual sex causes them to glue together. Gee, maybe it's a metaphor? Maybe the whole passage talks about a partner and doesn't actually mention sex? Maybe when someone talks about being 'completed' by their partner, they're not suggesting that the only time this happens is when a penis and a vagina meet?

I'm fascinated by the whole idea that men and women are 'opposites' but that all men are the 'same' and that all 'women' are the same (readily interchangeable??), thereby meaning that the only way you could possibly be made complete by another person is if they have the right physical plumbing.

Soulmates? Pfft. Who knew that souls had genitals?

Theologically and Biblically, 'one flesh' is the union of different sexes.

quote:
Genesis 2:23-24
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,[a]
for out of Man[b] this one was taken.”
24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

The difference between the genders is what makes the sexual relationship so profound, it is the joining as 'one flesh' of those two different genders. Note, it's not just the joining of two people as in the modern pop music definition of 'two become one.' It has to be complementary - 'mf' become one in a way that 'mm' or 'ff' cannot.

As far as adultery is concerned, I don't think any civil authority has the right to remove adultery from the ten commandments or from the words of Jesus about marriage.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
What's the betting Mudfrog wears poly-cotton shirts and eats shellfish?

No, but I know the difference between moral and ceremonial laws.
Sorry, I forgot that you get the right to pick and choose but I don't.
 
Posted by Herrick (# 15226) on :
 
Thanks Orfeo, that 'opposite' thing confused me too. There is no way that I am the opposite of any living thing. I may be a complement or an adjunct or a friend or a lover or an enemy, but not an opposite.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as adultery is concerned, I don't think any civil authority has the right to remove adultery from the ten commandments or from the words of Jesus about marriage.

Funnily enough, the ten commandments and the words of Jesus aren't actually enforceable in civil courts.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The difference between the genders is what makes the sexual relationship so profound, it is the joining as 'one flesh' of those two different genders. Note, it's not just the joining of two people as in the modern pop music definition of 'two become one.' It has to be complementary - 'mf' become one in a way that 'mm' or 'ff' cannot.

That's an assertion, not an explanation. To assert that your sex is 'profound' but that gay sex isn't is just incredibly insulting. How would you actually know this? Have you observed a lot of gay sex, and noted its serious lack of profundity? Have you observed any heterosexual sex besides your own?

And again, the idea that somehow complementarity is that simple... do you have ANY idea how ludicrous that sounds? You're treating people like magnets, two poles, either attract or repel. You're reducing all the complexity of human beings and their interactions with each other into a check of what's in their pants.

No other observation or empirical evidence about a relationship counts, apparently. Never mind that 2 guys I was reading about today are both 91 years old and have been together since they were 30, they're just not compatible with each other.

[ 15. August 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Clearly his gay sex wasn't as profound as when he had a female partner, so he bravely made the choice to be straight unlike all you degenerate freaks.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia

Actually, the way language works, individuals don't decide the meanings of words. Even in France the Academie has to vote on it.

quote:
I suggest that you recognise that there are people with a different view to yours. I suggest you just get over it.
Ouch! Ouch! Too early in the morning here for the burn of cold irony.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
By Vishnu, Mudfrog is a wordy little fucker for someone who claims not to be responding.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Consults crystal ball/

He's about to pull the 'I'm gay, so I'm not homophobic' card for his whataboutery.

In his case, I think it's a bit of conservative posing to avoid having to identify with those nasty 'lefties' demanding a boycott.

So not homophobia, I'd guess but Toryphilia which has led to him being mistaken for an actual homophobe using 'dogwhistle' tactics. Which is kind of amusing actually and serves him right for his 'Look at me, I'm such a contrarian!' posting.

quote:
by Sergius Melli in Dead Horses
... whilst I may have made LGBT rights an issue I campaign about and thereby do not give my time or money to WaterAid, I will do my utmost to ensure that I campaign on every area of LGBT rights and do not just advocate in one small section, hence why if you are going to kick up a fuss about one issue then you need to bring a light to bear, and pressure, upon those other related issues. If you call for a boycott of Russia, call for a boycott of every other place in the world which acts as Russia does or even worse does not give even the minimum of human rights to LGBT peoples.


 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
I love it, because I'm a conservative Party member I must be either stupid and suffer some sort of mental disorder of 'Toryism'.

I see Curiosity has had the decency to paste over what I have posted on the other thread which is the point I'm making, if your going to campaign on an issue, do it wholeheartedly campaigning on the whole issue not just one country.

I really can't get worked up enough for Hell, it just isn't in me to do so, and whilst I never intended to play the 'gay card', because that would have been far too easy, I was going to go through the whole bloody setting out of my position so that dimwits can actually understand my point.

And hey, so what if I believe in consensus and trying to reach a common ground with my Brothers and Sisters in Christ? That is my choice and to me much more admirable than sectarianism and the overly schismatic nature of what is generally proposed here. It is a fact of life that people do not agree on issues, and therefore proper dialogue and step-by-step consensus has to be made to ensure that success for the ultimate aims is achieved, I don't just assume that everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong, they tend to actually have something really important to add to a discussion, but then, that would require having to admit that you don't know everything and that just doesn't seem to fit with the ideology that underpins too many people's philosophy these days.

So yes, I stand by what I said over in DH since it wasn't a statement of my beliefs but actually a statement for you to examine yourselves and consider whether you put just as much effort into boycotting and highlighting those other countries where gay people are actually murdered for who they are, or whether you are just the hypocrites which you come across as Russia is easy pickings but hey we can't say anything about Africa of the Middle East because that would be racism because they are cultures different to our own, or to be honest you don't really care about homophobia across the world, just token supporters when it is convenient and necessary to be so!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I understand your point. I just don't agree with it. Not least because you've decided that everyone else has to define "the [whole] issue" at exactly the same level of abstraction that you do.

[ 15. August 2013, 15:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yup, me, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and millions of ordinary Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and yes, even gay people, who do not agree with same sex marriage.

Indeed.

quote:
I would return your compliment and call you an intolerant denier of freedom of speech.
If fighting against injustice is denying freedom of speech, then I guess so.

After all, telling someone that they can't call my mate Colin a "fucking nigger" is denying their freedom of speech as well, but I doubt anyone here would argue against it.

quote:
I suggest that you recognise that there are people with a different view to yours. I suggest you just get over it. Protesting outside a closed church door that people don't agree with you, and that the vicar won't abandon all his beliefs in order to give you what you want and marry you, isn't going to win you the argument.
I don't give a shit what you do in your church, so long as it fucking stays there. You don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't have one. But don't try to deny others the right to have one if they so choose.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, but I know the difference between moral and ceremonial laws.

The latter are ones you commit, and the former are ones you don't?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Reply to Curiosity intercepted by various cross-posts/

Yes but so what? [I see I'm cross posting with S&M] It's just a prettier excuse after he was challenged on this

quote:
As I've already said above, Russia has passed a law, democratically, which is backed by as many as 90% of the Russian population. Surprisingly I respect democracy and therefore respect Russia's right to regulate their citizens behaviour, especially in regards to minors (because lets be clear this is not a law banning homosexuality, merely a law which prevents the presentation of same-sex relationships to minors.)
He goes on in a later post to say the law 'isn't that harmful' and this despite the fact that gay people are already having to leave the country after legal advice that their children could be taken from them by social services, thanks to this law.

It's just a twattish pose so he can have his cake and eat it - both attacking non right-wing human rights driven boycott movements and claiming to still be keen on LGBT human rights.

It's an uncomfortable fact for right-wing LGBTs that until recently when a few of their parties were dragged kicking and screaming into the current century, that they've historically relied on those same human-rights orientated lefties they despise to defend them. So when their parties revert to type and drag their heels on things like boycotts of countries with anti-gay laws, they have to find an excuse for going along with that.

As to the whataboutery, there have been plenty threads over homophobic laws in Africa and nobody around here supports misogynist and anti-gay laws in the middle east (by the way, there's already a boycott campaign from the Gay Football Supporters' Network against the world cup in Qatar. I wonder if after all his noise about 'sharia zones' and picking on Russia if he'll be opposing that boycott too? Or is it somehow OK?).

Mind you though, if he's actually campaigning tirelessly on all fronts I take it he's now going everywhere by horse to make sure his money doesn't go on into any nasty middle eastern pockets and avoiding anything that needed oil for its transport.

Eventually when he's living in a roundhouse made from local stone he's nicked from some farmer's dyke himself, clad only in woad and eating only local turnips bought within walking distance, he will be able with a clean conscience to join a boycott of the Russian Olympics as he'll have successfully boycotted everything else and will be making sure not a single penny goes to any naughty nation.

In the meantime those of us who can't aspire to be so amazingly pure, will get on with doing what we can to make sure world leaders at the head of noxious anti-gay campaigns get the bad PR they deserve when they pop their heads up on the world stage.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Louise, I thought you'd had your point made for you with that post.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Louise, I thought you'd had your point made for you with that post.

Sorry wasn't clear to me what point you were making!
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Theologically and Biblically, 'one flesh' is the union of different sexes.

I am not sure that is sufficient as a statement of Biblical attitudes, to be honest.

At risk of huge overgeneralising, the attitude to the sexes in Biblical times was not the same as ours today. There were differences between Hellenic, Roman and Jewish practices and attitudes, but in a very general sense for most ancient cultures there was a residual understanding of sexuality which derived from Hellenic beliefs, and this understanding underpins what the Bible has to say.

The Ancient Greeks regarded a man as the most perfect creature, and a woman as a 'misbegotten' male. Male was the unmarked norm, the benchmark, the perfect, the complete, the active, the strong, the intelligent. Female was the marked, passive, imperfect, unintelligent and incomplete. Women often were not educated, and were kept in seclusion at home, and their lack of education reinforced attitudes that they were not worth regarding as equal to men.

Therefore, it naturally followed that for the Ancient Greeks a relationship between two men was regarded as far more perfect than that between a man and a woman. The latter might be necessary to achieve procreation, but any self respecting Greek would prefer his male friends to his wife. This led in turn to the whole culture of pederasty.

Then we bring in the Roman context. Ancient Romans were in general not impressed with the culture of pederasty, and found it distasteful. Ancient Roman women were regarded with more respect than their Greek sisters, and they were often educated and had more freedom in society. A Roman man could have male friends and lovers if he wanted, but there were conditions. A man could take the active role with anyone and anything, but he could not take the passive or female role. To be passive was unnatural for a man, just as to be active was unnatural for a woman.

This attitude colours much of what we read in the Bible. It is not the lying with a man itself that is condemned, as much as it is the lying with a man as if one were a woman.

Therefore, it is far more complex than just a simple condemnation of same sex activity as we understand it. No ancient society had a concept of gay; it was not needed. Every man could and did choose to do what he liked with whatever he liked, without being labelled. As long as he was the initiator and the actor, he was a man. Women, slaves and boys could be passive; men could not.

A Biblical condemnation would have been just as strongly stated against a wife initiating sex with her husband and taking an active role in love-making, or indeed a married man lying back and letting his wife do all the work. Which Christians today would regard either of these as abominations before the Lord? Yet these are derived from the very same mindset as the 'Biblical' condemnation of same sex activity. What is 'natural' in ancient times is not the same as what is natural to us.

Therefore, without some awareness of the different attitudes to men and women, any comments about same sex activity which are extrapolated onto our own society are likely to result in a very real distortion.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't give a shit what you do in your church, so long as it fucking stays there. You don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't have one. But don't try to deny others the right to have one if they so choose.

That's good. But don't try to force the church to change its mind - not, like those two pampered rich men, take your local parish church to court for not allowing you to have your big theatrical day out on their premises.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:


A Biblical condemnation would have been just as strongly stated against a wife initiating sex with her husband and taking an active role in love-making, or indeed a married man lying back and letting his wife do all the work. Which Christians today would regard either of these as abominations before the Lord? Yet these are derived from the very same mindset as the 'Biblical' condemnation of same sex activity. What is 'natural' in ancient times is not the same as what is natural to us.

Therefore, without some awareness of the different attitudes to men and women, any comments about same sex activity which are extrapolated onto our own society are likely to result in a very real distortion.

Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
And hey, so what if I believe in consensus and trying to reach a common ground with my Brothers and Sisters in Christ? That is my choice and to me much more admirable than sectarianism and the overly schismatic nature of what is generally proposed here. It is a fact of life that people do not agree on issues, and therefore proper dialogue and step-by-step consensus has to be made to ensure that success for the ultimate aims is achieved, I don't just assume that everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong, they tend to actually have something really important to add to a discussion, but then, that would require having to admit that you don't know everything and that just doesn't seem to fit with the ideology that underpins too many people's philosophy these days.

Why is it that, when people say they believe in consensus, they never seem to want it with their gay Brothers and Sisters in Christ?
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.

[Big Grin]

Is that the best you have to offer?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.

[Big Grin]

Is that the best you have to offer?

In the absence of anything to discuss, yes.
Where in the Biblical record is there any hint of this?
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
This is one of those Hell threads that started with competitive invective and is turning into something really interesting.

For example:

1) Mudfrog's defense of the old Thomistic concept of "one flesh." I am recalling Sarah Ruddick and others a generation ago, with their involved efforts to explain why only heterosexual sex (specifically male ejaculation into the vagina) was "complete" -- with everything else "perverted." This was taken seriously in the scholarly world .... and possibly still is(????)

2) The following example of pique -- which tells us more of Mudfrog's personal view of gay marriage than he might like.

quote:
But don't try to force the church to change its mind - not, like those two pampered rich men, take your local parish church to court for not allowing you to have your big theatrical day out on their premises.
Ouch.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
This is one of those Hell threads that started with competitive invective and is turning into something really interesting.

For example:

1) Mudfrog's defense of the old Thomistic concept of "one flesh." I am recalling Sarah Ruddick and others a generation ago, with their involved efforts to explain why only heterosexual sex (specifically male ejaculation into the vagina) was "complete" -- with everything else "perverted." This was taken seriously in the scholarly world .... and possibly still is(????)

2) The following example of pique -- which tells us more of Mudfrog's personal view of gay marriage than he might like.

quote:
But don't try to force the church to change its mind - not, like those two pampered rich men, take your local parish church to court for not allowing you to have your big theatrical day out on their premises.
Ouch.
I don't know about Thomist concepts or Ruddick - AFAIAA it's orthodox teaching on marriage: man and wife together are joined in matrimony and we are one flesh. It's not a minority view and it's the main reason the Church will not accept gap people into marriage.

I wrote the last comment because one of the men, Barrie Drewitt, said this (and I'm afraid it sounds like he's having a hissy fit):

quote:
“I am still not getting what I want... It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”
These men are extremely wealthy and their attitude in this case reads like men who have got everything they want but have discovered for the very first time that their wealth can't buy them this and they don't like it!

[ 15. August 2013, 18:34: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Thanks for clarifying, Mudfrog.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Thanks for clarifying, Mudfrog.

Would appreciate your clarification of your concept of "the church," as in the following ...
quote:
it's the main reason the Church will not accept gap people into marriage.
.
Are you suggesting that those churches and church people who do accept gay marriage are somehow excluded from "the church"?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Thanks for clarifying, Mudfrog.

Would appreciate your clarification of your concept of "the church," as in the following ...
quote:
it's the main reason the Church will not accept gap people into marriage.
.
Are you suggesting that those churches and church people who do accept gay marriage are somehow excluded from "the church"?

Well the view against SSM is pretty widespread I believe: I think if one adds together the Pope (and his little gathering of followers [Biased] ), the Archbishop of Canterbury and quite a lot of Anglicans throughout the globe), the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Methodist Conference, The Southern baptists, just about every other Pentecostal and Evangelical denomination etc, etc, and Oh, The Salvation Army too, I think you've got it just about covered as 'official positions' go for The Church, don't you?

[ 15. August 2013, 19:05: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
...and then, of course one must, these days, factor in the entire edifice of Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians (!)

...Oh, and I forgot Lutherans and Presbyterians.

[Big Grin]

[ 15. August 2013, 19:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
I read this entire thread and the only thing I can think is holy God in heaven, heterosexuals are really ridiculously obsessed with sex.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I read this entire thread and the only thing I can think is holy God in heaven, heterosexuals are really ridiculously obsessed with sex.

That's funny! The entire conversation is entirely driven bu those who want to change thousands of years of tradition; this would not be an issue otherwise. The church is merely reacting; it's not leading the discussion.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and then, of course one must, these days, factor in the entire edifice of Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians (!)

...Oh, and I forgot Lutherans and Presbyterians.

[Big Grin]

Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples [Yipee]

Huia

[ 15. August 2013, 19:18: Message edited by: Huia ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and then, of course one must, these days, factor in the entire edifice of Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians (!)

...Oh, and I forgot Lutherans and Presbyterians.

[Big Grin]

Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples [Yipee]

Huia

Not quite.

quote:
(New Zealand) Presbyterian moderator the Rt Rev Ray Coster said a general assembly voted last October, (2012) with 75 per cent support, to uphold marriage as "the loving, faithful union of a man and a woman".

"All ministers are expected to abide by the decision that marriage is a loving, faithful union between a man and a woman," he said.

But a bid to prohibit ministers from conducting same-sex marriages narrowly failed to get the 60 per cent support needed to become church law, allowing ministers to conduct such marriages if they choose to do so.

Not quite a ringing endorsement I feel.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The entire conversation is entirely driven bu those who want to change thousands of years of tradition ...

You haven't read the Old Testament very carefully, it seems.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The entire conversation is entirely driven bu those who want to change thousands of years of tradition ...

You haven't read the Old Testament very carefully, it seems.
Two thousand years is still 'thousands of years.'
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I read this entire thread and the only thing I can think is holy God in heaven, heterosexuals are really ridiculously obsessed with sex.

That's funny! The entire conversation is entirely driven bu those who want to change thousands of years of tradition; this would not be an issue otherwise. The church is merely reacting; it's not leading the discussion.
Thanks for proving my point. You've got sex on the brain and you're obsessed with making sure everyone's having it the same way you like it. I guess that's a valid lifestyle choice.

Me? I've got other hobbies, amongst which include being Senior Warden, supporting children with cancer, and being a soccer hooligan.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Thanks for clarifying, Mudfrog.

Would appreciate your clarification of your concept of "the church," as in the following ...
quote:
it's the main reason the Church will not accept gap people into marriage.
.
Are you suggesting that those churches and church people who do accept gay marriage are somehow excluded from "the church"?

Well the view against SSM is pretty widespread I believe: I think if one adds together the Pope (and his little gathering of followers [Biased] ), the Archbishop of Canterbury and quite a lot of Anglicans throughout the globe), the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Methodist Conference, The Southern baptists, just about every other Pentecostal and Evangelical denomination etc, etc, and Oh, The Salvation Army too, I think you've got it just about covered as 'official positions' go for The Church, don't you?
That's an awful lot of argument based on authority for someone who likes to go on about how he believes in getting his opinions straight from the bible and doesn't care about the prevailing winds of thought.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... thousands of years of tradition ...

I care about people, not traditions. If a tradition is hurting people then it needs to change.

If everyone had thought like you do a few hundred years ago, slavery would never have been abolished.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I reject the meaning that you give to the word homophobia and I reject the allegation of hatred of homosexual people that is implied by its use against me.

I think it's fair to say that you are one of the most intractable opponents of equal rights for gay people on the Ship, that you seem almost entirely devoid of empathy for those whose rights that you want to restrict, and that your arguments against equality are entirely bad, and occasionally transparently insincere.

While it would be tempting to ascribe this to a general lack of intelligence, compassion, integrity, self-awareness and debating skill in your character, even a casual observation of the manner in which you engage on almost any other subject would reveal this to be a mistake. In fact you possess all of those qualities, often to a high degree. It seems that there is something about this issue that causes you to engage in a manner that you would be ashamed of in any other circumstances.

There are, I think, no Shipmates of whom the above is more true than it is true of you. Some come close, but there are none who surpass you. Therefore, I cannot help but conclude that if you are indeed "not a homophobe", no homophobe has ever posted on this forum.

Given that homophobia is extremely prevalent in our society, that would be a rather remarkable fact, wouldn't you say? Something that we can all congratulate ourselves on, while we continue to tell gay people that they don't quite deserve the same treatment as everybody else.

[ 15. August 2013, 21:00: Message edited by: Eliab ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I'm so glad that I'm not a member of what Mudfrog defines as Church.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
...

2) The following example of pique -- which tells us more of Mudfrog's personal view of gay marriage than he might like.

quote:
But don't try to force the church to change its mind - not, like those two pampered rich men, take your local parish church to court for not allowing you to have your big theatrical day out on their premises.
Ouch.
Is Mudfrog's objection to the style, the substance or both?!

Are big theatrical days out okay if they're hosted by a rich, straight couple? Even if that couple are only getting married in church because it look pretty in the photos?

Is two people of the same sex getting married and staying together until death do them part, better or worse than a celeb marriage with all the trimmings, as featured in Hello!, that lasts less than a week?!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Yeah, but straight people can do what they want with their privilege. These gay people swan around like they've got a right.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
This is one of those Hell threads that started with competitive invective and is turning into something really interesting.

For example:

1) Mudfrog's defense of the old Thomistic concept of "one flesh." I am recalling Sarah Ruddick and others a generation ago, with their involved efforts to explain why only heterosexual sex (specifically male ejaculation into the vagina) was "complete" -- with everything else "perverted." This was taken seriously in the scholarly world .... and possibly still is(????)

2) The following example of pique -- which tells us more of Mudfrog's personal view of gay marriage than he might like.

quote:
But don't try to force the church to change its mind - not, like those two pampered rich men, take your local parish church to court for not allowing you to have your big theatrical day out on their premises.
Ouch.
I don't know about Thomist concepts or Ruddick - AFAIAA it's orthodox teaching on marriage: man and wife together are joined in matrimony and we are one flesh. It's not a minority view and it's the main reason the Church will not accept gap people into marriage.

I wrote the last comment because one of the men, Barrie Drewitt, said this (and I'm afraid it sounds like he's having a hissy fit):

quote:
“I am still not getting what I want... It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”
These men are extremely wealthy and their attitude in this case reads like men who have got everything they want but have discovered for the very first time that their wealth can't buy them this and they don't like it!

Ooh, nice bit of selective quoting!!! The full quote puts a slightly different slant on it.

quote:

'I am a Christian - a practising Christian. My children have all been brought up as Christians and are part of the local parish church.' Mr Drewitt-Barlow, 42, who owns a surrogacy company based near the family home in Essex and is opening another in Los Angeles, added: 'If I was a Sikh I could get married at the Gurdwara. Liberal Jews can marry in the Synagogue - just not the Christians.

'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.

He said it was a shame that he and his partner were being forced to take Christians to court to get them to recognise them, but he said the new law did not give them what they have been campaigning for.

The rest of the article is here. Warning, is from the Mail.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
That story first broke in the Essex Chronicle which I suspect the Mail are quoting
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[Well the view against SSM is pretty widespread I believe: I think if one adds together the Pope (and his little gathering of followers [Biased] ), the Archbishop of Canterbury and quite a lot of Anglicans throughout the globe), the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Methodist Conference, The Southern baptists, just about every other Pentecostal and Evangelical denomination etc, etc, and Oh, The Salvation Army too, I think you've got it just about covered as 'official positions' go for The Church, don't you?

That's an awful lot of argument based on authority for someone who likes to go on about how he believes in getting his opinions straight from the bible and doesn't care about the prevailing winds of thought.
Not to mention it's hilarious seeing those sort of arguments from someone belonging to a non-sacramental form of Christianity. World Christianity is still overwhelmingly sacramental, and so by his own sort of reasoning Mudfrog's a loony liberal well outside historic Christian tradition overturning thousands of years of the faith...

Only a few hundred years ago he'd have been burnt at the stake right next to the gay people as he'd be reckoned to be some kind of Anabaptist fanatic destroying the Christian faith. But I don't think Mudfrog reads much Church history or has the faintest idea what Holy Tradition over 'thousands of years' actually looked like. It just sounds to him like a handy stick to hit the gays with.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, but I know the difference between moral and ceremonial laws.

The latter are ones you commit, and the former are ones you don't?
So it seems. Note the law against consuming blood is pretty strict.

To Noah
Genesis 9:4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it"
Followed by lots of laws in Leviticus etc. against consuming blood.
and finally at the Council of Jerusalem
Acts 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

The Bible does seem pretty definite on consuming blood being bad.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Not to mention it's hilarious seeing those sort of arguments from someone belonging to a non-sacramental form of Christianity. World Christianity is still overwhelmingly sacramental, and so by his own sort of reasoning Mudfrog's a loony liberal well outside historic Christian tradition overturning thousands of years of the faith...

Only a few hundred years ago he'd have been burnt at the stake right next to the gay people as he'd be reckoned to be some kind of Anabaptist fanatic destroying the Christian faith. But I don't think Mudfrog reads much Church history or has the faintest idea what Holy Tradition over 'thousands of years' actually looked like. It just sounds to him like a handy stick to hit the gays with.

Not at all.
We don't disagree with the sacraments at all - many Salvationists partake of the Eucharist and even go to be baptised. We just don't think it's part of our mission to offer them in our worship.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Only a few hundred years ago he'd have been burnt at the stake right next to the gay people as he'd be reckoned to be some kind of Anabaptist fanatic destroying the Christian faith.

Out of curiosity, who burned gay people at the stake where, a few hundred years ago? Historical evidence, please?

Of course, every gay person has exactly the same right to marriage as every heterosexual person. However, most gay people are not actually keen on an intimate, life-long, exclusive relationship with the other sex, ordered to procreation.

What this discussion is actually about is whether gay people can force other people to call their intimate relationships with people of the same sex "marriage". Once upon a time that demand could pretend to be about achieving equal treatment before the law by virtue of obtaining the same label. But in many places, like the UK, equality before the law has already been achieved. So it now is a mere matter of language.

Do gay people have a right to force others to call their intimate relationships with same sex partners a "marriage"? No, I don't think so. However, it is likely that the forces of language obfuscation will prevail here. So we should probably start talking about matrimony instead of marriage now. Perhaps gays will hesitate to force others to call their relationships "matrimony" at least, given the etymology of that word... A gay relationship makes nobody "mater" (Latin for "mother"), after all.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Out of curiosity, who burned gay people at the stake where, a few hundred years ago? Historical evidence, please?


Is Jesuit testimony acceptable?


quote:
Various writers have drawn links between the treatment of Jews, lepers, heretics and homosexuals [31]. Each group tended to be scarred with the stigma of the others. Physical persecution followed the increase in intolerance. The burnings began when the secular lawmakers took up the ecclesiastical themes [32].

 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I am going to finish my contributions on this thread now.
I only came here because someone told me he'd mentioned my name somewhere near the beginning!
I merely responded to his notification.

I wish I'd not bothered now [Smile]

My only point really is to say that, along with the majority of churches and Christians (therefore The Salvation Army is far from unique), I do not believe that marriage as properly and theologically defined, be offered to same sex couples.

I have made no statement on gay relationships per se. I have not disagreed with same sex commitments and apart from the Biblical injunctions I have no negative opinion whatever - in fact I did say at one point that I support civil partnerships. I have pastored and supported a gay couple (sadly no longer together) and found them to be warm, sincere and genuine and I had no negative opinions about them either. They knew that we don't fully agree with gay sex but they still counted us as friends and I was glad to recognise their deep friendship and loving support for one another.

If I have come across as aggressive I apologise (though if I started out like this at the top of the thread I was just trying to post in the context of 'hell' - but I'm glad the discussion became calmer.

I have tried to keep my mind on the one issue of marriage.
I still cannot see that marriage can be redefined and still be true to what the Bible and the church have taught constantly and consistently throughout. I do have to say that it is difficult to discuss this matter objectively without the h word being thrown around. I find that once that word is used, no dialogue is possible because, as I mentioned earlier, it's like a witch denying she is one because that is taken as proof!

Anyway. I'll leave it there. This is never going to be resolved on the Ship of Fools.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Kelly : We couldn't find the page you requested is what I get.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
The link is broken, Kelly. (Not that I find the quote particularly informative...)
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Kelly's link is here. All it says about dates of burnings is:
quote:
Crompton "Lesbian Impunity", p. 17, finds the earliest burning of a male sodomite in Ghent in 1292.

 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I still cannot see that marriage can be redefined and still be true to what the Bible and the church have taught constantly and consistently throughout.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Are you serious? The OT teaches that polygamy is fine and you don't even have to marry all the mothers of your children. The NT does not say a great deal about marriage, even suggesting it is less than ideal - but it is better than burning. The teachings of the Church have varied over the centuries as well, including approving of political marriages of royal children.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Ingo, I'm referring to those executions for sodomy which were for anal intercourse or other form of same sex contact which, apart from the odd unlucky straight person bored with lack of female company or plying for hire, would mostly net gay people, so France as late as 1750. It was also a punishment in various Italian city states, in Spain/ Spanish colonies such as Mexico, but I don't know when it was taken off the books there.

In Scotland the last actual burning not associated with witchcraft was 1570.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't know about Thomist concepts or Ruddick - AFAIAA it's orthodox teaching on marriage: man and wife together are joined in matrimony and we are one flesh.

I confess to some curiosity about this "one flesh" business. What exactly is it that makes a man and a woman "one flesh" and when exactly does this become the case? Is it during the ceremony? Is it when the clergyperson "pronounces" the pair married? Is it when they exchange rings or vows or when they kiss? Or is it later, with the breaking of the hymen (assuming the bride has one)? Is it his ejaculation into her vagina? What if he wears a condom because they've decided to postpone children until they've got the reception bills paid off? I'm so confused.

Also, once this "one flesh" magic has been successfully conjured, what happens in later life, when he needs a bypass? Must she undergo surgery too?

So many questions . . .
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and then, of course one must, these days, factor in the entire edifice of Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians (!)

...Oh, and I forgot Lutherans and Presbyterians.

[Big Grin]

Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples [Yipee]

Huia

Not quite.

quote:
(New Zealand) Presbyterian moderator the Rt Rev Ray Coster said a general assembly voted last October, (2012) with 75 per cent support, to uphold marriage as "the loving, faithful union of a man and a woman".

"All ministers are expected to abide by the decision that marriage is a loving, faithful union between a man and a woman," he said.

But a bid to prohibit ministers from conducting same-sex marriages narrowly failed to get the 60 per cent support needed to become church law, allowing ministers to conduct such marriages if they choose to do so.

Not quite a ringing endorsement I feel.

Is this how you argue? What you have quoted supports Huia's assertion, not yours, dumbarse.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.

[Big Grin]

Is that the best you have to offer?

In this case I agree with him, because trying to use the Romans to discuss Old Testament passages is, shall we say, anachronistic?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Only a few hundred years ago he'd have been burnt at the stake right next to the gay people as he'd be reckoned to be some kind of Anabaptist fanatic destroying the Christian faith.

Out of curiosity, who burned gay people at the stake where, a few hundred years ago? Historical evidence, please?
You're probably right. The deaths were a lot more recent. And bashings and gas chambers have tended to be more popular than burnings.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Anyway having answered that query, Mudfrog I don't know where you get your information about witches from, but someone denying they were a witch has never turned up as evidence that they are witch in any court record, dittay or process that I've ever read, and I've read vast amounts of primary sources for witch trials. Maybe you're thinking of the swimming test which happened occasionally (sink you're innocent, float you're guilty) or something from The Crucible, perhaps there's something I've missed somewhere.

Either way it's got nothing to do with your habit of making rampantly anti-gay posts and then becoming outraged because people have called them or you homophobic. Many of your posts are homophobic. The OED* gives for homophobic "Pertaining to, characterized by, or exhibiting homophobia; hostile towards homosexuals." Many of your posts most certainly are hostile towards homosexuals - just look at the quote you took out of context in this very thread and labelled as a 'hissy fit'.

So you have been nice to gay people in real life, but on the ship you consistently post attacks on gay people on the grounds that you do not wish them to have the same rights as you. I somehow doubt the gay shipmates would classify your posts as friendly. Hostile yes, friendly no. What was that dictionary definition you were so keen on?

Your position reminds me a bit of the Church of Scotland ministers of the 1920s who protested that their anti Irish campaign was nothing to do with anti-Catholicism - how dare anyone call them anti-Catholic! No it was because the Irish were an inferior race - modern science showed it! How could anyone call that prejudice?

You seem to think that so long as you give it a different name, your homophobic posts are not homophobic. You might have been able to make a case for this forty years ago when equal marriage wasn't even on the horizon - 'I'm not homophobic - I have gay friends I am nice to'. But things have changed since then in the UK - those were the days when sit-com characters went on about 'nig nogs' on prime time telly and Dick Emery was considered an acceptable face of gay people.

People who oppose equal marriage can no longer realistically pride themselves that they are not anti-gay and how dare anyone call them homophobic, because they've been nice to some openly gay people. Nor can they expect the Church of Scotland trick to wash - rebranding an age-old prejudice to make it sound more modern and acceptable, the 'redefining marriage' trick. What's actually being redefined is the old prejudice which is getting a make-over and cuddlier words.

People are not daft and they spot this stuff. There's a reason lots of gay posters tell you they find your posts prejudiced against them - it's because they are. That's how they come across to practically everyone but you. Making a fuss about the suffix -phobic does nothing to change this.

You might pass as gay-friendly and unprejudiced in many other countries, but not in most of the UK anymore. At least not outside conservative religious circles, and this isn't one of them, so people will keep pointing out what John Cleese called the 'bleeding obvious' that by most modern UK standards many of your posts do indeed count as hostile to gay people and hence homophobic. If you want to change that, you won't do it by arguing about a suffix. The problem is that your standard for what is anti-gay is not the same as that of most other people posting here.


*Oxford English Dictionary

[ 16. August 2013, 00:52: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Anyway. I'll leave it there. This is never going to be resolved on the Ship of Fools.

But it's been resolved in lots of other places, including Canada. And the reason it has been resolved in so many places is that there is no valid non-religious argument against equal marriage rights for all citizens. The religious argument has been made. It lost, because we don`t live in a Christian theocracy. The religious freaks still have their Biblical [sic], one flesh, tab A and slot B marriages, no one has taken that away.

So go to Home Depot, buy a big ladder, and get over yourself.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Kelly : We couldn't find the page you requested is what I get.

Pete, the one silver lining I can count on when I screw up in one way or another is that at least you'll notice my existence long enough to point it out to me. Maybe subconsciously that's why I did it. [Tear]
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Anyway. I'll leave it there. This is never going to be resolved on the Ship of Fools.

But it's been resolved in lots of other places, including Canada.
Soror Magna, you forgot the silent "to my satisfaction" after Mudfrog's "resolved."
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Mudfrog's postings are obviously hostile to gay people. Stomping his feet and saying he gets to define marriage, when it's clear that the state in many places now includes same sex marriage is an example of closing his ears and shouting "LA LA LA I can't hear you".

But you are... But you are.

It's like saying "I don't think Jews should have sex or practice their religion but I'm not anti-Semitic. Besides I like Arabs so the word isn't appropriate for me.

What puzzles me is why he cares that his positions are obviously homophobia to most gay people in the common usage of the word. His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples. Any lawsuit will be dismissed quickly. He and his church will be seen as homophobic but it should be a point of pride to them even as it seems despicable to more and more people in secular society. Yet he keeps shouting his church doesn't have to marry Gay people as though anyone has said they have to.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:


And hey, so what if I believe in consensus and trying to reach a common ground with my Brothers and Sisters in Christ? That is my choice and to me much more admirable than sectarianism and the overly schismatic nature of what is generally proposed here. It is a fact of life that people do not agree on issues, and therefore proper dialogue and step-by-step consensus has to be made to ensure that success for the ultimate aims is achieved, I don't just assume that everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong, they tend to actually have something really important to add to a discussion, but then, that would require having to admit that you don't know everything and that just doesn't seem to fit with the ideology that underpins too many people's philosophy these days.

Great. Call us when you've got it all done. Maybe you'll beat us to the punch.
I must note by your logic that you're hypocritically focusing just on Christian consensus instead of looking for a consensus from all people in all religions.

In the mean time shut the fuck up in discussions on achieving goals by picking a sequence of battles especially since you've said it's not anything you're spending any energy on.
You have nothing to contribute except a horrible example. We'll take it as given that we're doing it all wrong since you don't want it to happen before your magical consensus happens.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, but I know the difference between moral and ceremonial laws.

The latter are ones you commit, and the former are ones you don't?
So it seems. Note the law against consuming blood is pretty strict.

To Noah
Genesis 9:4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it"
Followed by lots of laws in Leviticus etc. against consuming blood.
and finally at the Council of Jerusalem
Acts 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

The Bible does seem pretty definite on consuming blood being bad.

Oh well, no more black pudding with marmalade for breakfast then
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
But it's been resolved in lots of other places, including Canada. And the reason it has been resolved in so many places is that there is no valid non-religious argument against equal marriage rights for all citizens. The religious argument has been made. It lost, because we don`t live in a Christian theocracy. The religious freaks still have their Biblical [sic], one flesh, tab A and slot B marriages, no one has taken that away.

I was trying to think last night, what arguments against gay marriage have any coherence? And yes, the only coherent one is a moral judgement from religious beliefs. I mean, in the case of Christianity I personally think it's wrong and a misinterpretation of the Bible, but it's at least coherent.

Then it hit me that the basis for that moral judgement is not just that gay marriage is wrong, but that gay SEX is wrong. And the 'gay sex is wrong' argument got lost quite a while ago, at least in the Western countries we're talking about. So why on earth people who still think gay sex is wrong should be listened to at this point, I don't know.

And we get all this "I support gays but..." business, when the whole argument boils down to "actually I think gay sex is wrong or lesser or not as 'profound' as straight sex". Sorry, but no dice. The law now pretty much says that gay sex is regulated on the same principles as straight sex. It's all fine between consenting people of sufficient age and maturity to choose their sexual partners.

To base any kind of argument against same sex marriage on the basis that homosexual sex is somehow different in moral quality to heterosexual sex isn't arguing to maintain a status quo, it's attempting to drag us backwards in time.

[ 16. August 2013, 08:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.

[Big Grin]

Is that the best you have to offer?

In this case I agree with him, because trying to use the Romans to discuss Old Testament passages is, shall we say, anachronistic?
I spoke of Hellenic, Ancient Roman and Ancient Jewish attitudes towards sexuality. Those attitudes were very different from our own, and I gave some reasons why, and some examples.

The culture of Israel in Biblical times was not just Jewish. It was very much influenced by Hellenism and by ancient Rome. When the Lord celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem, he reclined on a couch in the Roman fashion, with St John resting on his breast.

Roman culture is indeed relevant to the Bible, and to its mores.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Ingo, I'm referring to those executions for sodomy which were for anal intercourse or other form of same sex contact which, apart from the odd unlucky straight person bored with lack of female company or plying for hire, would mostly net gay people, so France as late as 1750. It was also a punishment in various Italian city states, in Spain/ Spanish colonies such as Mexico, but I don't know when it was taken off the books there. In Scotland the last actual burning not associated with witchcraft was 1570.

Thanks. I note two things: First, these executions are rare, rare enough to be listed individually across the space of centuries. That was my impression of the often ... relaxed attitude in matters of sex in the middle ages up to early modernity. Second, they are by the regular powers of the state. Sodomy simply was considered a capital crime. Obviously there is a connection there to Christian morals, I'm not denying that. But Mudfrog would not have been burned for his "Anabaptism" just the same as gay people, as was the claim. Or if so, then because the state also was persecuting heresy by its own lights, not because the Church was hunting down gays. This translates into modernity, where matters get considerably worse for gays and indeed we find mass killings. Again, some connection from Nazi gas chambers to Christian morals can be made, but it is not as if Catholic or Protestant clergy were commanding these atrocities. Indeed, quite a few clergy where dying in these gas chambers. It is fair enough to ask questions about how Christian morals have played out for gays, but one should not construct a fake history in which the inquisition was busy burning homosexuals. That was not the case.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I confess to some curiosity about this "one flesh" business. What exactly is it that makes a man and a woman "one flesh" and when exactly does this become the case? Is it during the ceremony? Is it when the clergyperson "pronounces" the pair married? Is it when they exchange rings or vows or when they kiss? Or is it later, with the breaking of the hymen (assuming the bride has one)? Is it his ejaculation into her vagina? What if he wears a condom because they've decided to postpone children until they've got the reception bills paid off? I'm so confused.

In terms of holy matrimony (i.e., the RC sacrament): while marriage is established with the ceremony, it comes into full effect indeed only with the sexual act (vaginal intercourse). Hence a marriage that has not been consummated sexually can still be divorced, whereas one that has cannot. The relevant canon:
quote:
Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
By this definition a sexual act with condom would not be sufficient for consummation, because it is not suitable in itself for begetting offspring. While this gets into angels on a pin territory, male ejaculation is not required though for consummation, if it is not intentionally withheld (as a kind of contraception).

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Also, once this "one flesh" magic has been successfully conjured, what happens in later life, when he needs a bypass? Must she undergo surgery too?

That does not even make sense in its mockery. If the spouses are "one flesh" in that literal sense, then when he gets a bypass, she would have had one (in the part of their "one flesh" that is him). While the meaning of "one flesh" really pertains to intimate relationships, it is however entirely appropriate to understand it like that: poetically and spiritually, not literally. Indeed, it should be so that as he suffers a bypass, so does she.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
So many questions . . .

None of which are honest, all of which are rhetorical...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.

[Big Grin]

Is that the best you have to offer?

In this case I agree with him, because trying to use the Romans to discuss Old Testament passages is, shall we say, anachronistic?
I spoke of Hellenic, Ancient Roman and Ancient Jewish attitudes towards sexuality. Those attitudes were very different from our own, and I gave some reasons why, and some examples.

The culture of Israel in Biblical times was not just Jewish. It was very much influenced by Hellenism and by ancient Rome. When the Lord celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem, he reclined on a couch in the Roman fashion, with St John resting on his breast.

Roman culture is indeed relevant to the Bible, and to its mores.

You're doing it again. The Bible was written over a very, very long period of time. There might be some debate about precisely when the passage in Genesis about 'one flesh' was written, but it sure wasn't written when the Romans were around to influence the culture in Israel.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
While the meaning of "one flesh" really pertains to intimate relationships, it is however entirely appropriate to understand it like that: poetically and spiritually, not literally.

I hope you can see the conundrum here. You've got "marriage" being completed by a physical act of penetration, whereas here you agree with my line that "one flesh" is about the intimacy of a relationship and not about particular physical acts.

Which is fine so long as you don't treat the "one flesh" passage as an explanation of why gays can't marry. But that's precisely what Mudfrog is trying to do.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I read this entire thread and the only thing I can think is holy God in heaven, heterosexuals are really ridiculously obsessed with sex.

I am very sorry to hear that.

Perhaps if you have a nice lie down you will be able to think about something else in due course.

[Smile]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:


1. His church doesn't have to marry gay people

2. just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

3. Yet he keeps shouting his church doesn't have to marry Gay people as though anyone has said they have to.

1. No - they don't, agreed.

2. They can marry interracial couples as Salvation Army Buildings are licensed to conduct marriages on behalf of the local Registrar. I can't recall any example in the last 20 years of a couple being refused marriage on the grounds of race -- at least not in the UK. The 1975 Race Relation Acts apply. Anecdotally, YMMV, as the USA seems to be (anecdotally at least) different on this.

I think you're trying to compare two incomparable sets of circumstances here.

3. Nope they don't but the law is framed poorly as it assumes that all churches who conduct weddings are Anglican Churches (ie under the semi official control of the state). Many churches aren't and their ecclesiology leaves them vulnerable to being asked to do things they believe to be wrong. A legal case brought against a Baptist church who refuse to do a SMM would have a far better chance of success than it currently has with the Anglican (State) Church. Yes, that's making a point but it cannot (not won't) win. The law just isn't there to do that.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're doing it again. The Bible was written over a very, very long period of time. There might be some debate about precisely when the passage in Genesis about 'one flesh' was written, but it sure wasn't written when the Romans were around to influence the culture in Israel.

Most excellent; Panto time.

Oh yes it was.

[ 16. August 2013, 08:31: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[QUOTE] When the Lord celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem, he reclined on a couch in the Roman fashion, with St John resting on his breast.

This is a middle eastern practice not necessarily a Roman one.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
Sorry for returning, but I really do have to answer this.

My church can not marry inter-racial couples? Who on earth ever said that?? Of course we can and do!

And as far as marriage is concerned, yes, I do conduct weddings though, as with other non-Anglican churches I either have to have a civil registrar present to hear the legal vows or, as was the case with our congregation until recently, a member of our congregation does it as an appointee of the registrar general.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're doing it again. The Bible was written over a very, very long period of time. There might be some debate about precisely when the passage in Genesis about 'one flesh' was written, but it sure wasn't written when the Romans were around to influence the culture in Israel.

Most excellent; Panto time.

Oh yes it was.

And what date, roughly, was this??
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
They can choose to be Registrars and so are bound by UK law if they do.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The church is merely reacting; it's not leading the discussion.

This is the saddest commentary on the church you could write. In so many areas.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[QUOTE] When the Lord celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem, he reclined on a couch in the Roman fashion, with St John resting on his breast.

This is a middle eastern practice not necessarily a Roman one.
Indeed, it's not like only the Romans did this - everyone else, including tent-dwelling nomads, had dining tables and chairs.


[Big Grin]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
They can choose to be Registrars and so are bound by UK law if they do.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
They can choose to be Registrars and so are bound by UK law if they do.
Not sure what you mean by this? That Salvation Army officers can also be employed as registrars? That would mean leaving their ministry and choosing another career. We are no registrars but we are required to have one in attendance at weddings in order to listen to those few legal vows couples have to make. Or else we have one of our own congregation, as I have said, as a nominated person.

BTW, why did you post this twice, 20 minutes apart?

[ 16. August 2013, 09:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and then, of course one must, these days, factor in the entire edifice of Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians (!)

...Oh, and I forgot Lutherans and Presbyterians.

[Big Grin]

Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples [Yipee]

Huia

Not quite.

quote:
(New Zealand) Presbyterian moderator the Rt Rev Ray Coster said a general assembly voted last October, (2012) with 75 per cent support, to uphold marriage as "the loving, faithful union of a man and a woman".

"All ministers are expected to abide by the decision that marriage is a loving, faithful union between a man and a woman," he said.

But a bid to prohibit ministers from conducting same-sex marriages narrowly failed to get the 60 per cent support needed to become church law, allowing ministers to conduct such marriages if they choose to do so.

Not quite a ringing endorsement I feel.

True,and there are some conservatives trying to prevent it, never the less it is not against church policy, and some ministers are looking forward to celebrating such marriages.

Huia
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
This is a middle eastern practice not necessarily a Roman one.

Moses stipulated standing up, with suitcases packed.

Somewhere along the way Roman couches were adopted, as rather more comfortable.

The extent of Hellenic and Roman influence on the ancient Jewish world is largely underestimated, particulary in modern interpretation of Scripture. We assume a more pure Jewish culture than could have possibly existed, imo.

A comparison might be India before and after the Raj. Like it or not, imperialism has a very great effect on a culture. Roman imperialism lasted far longer in the Middle East than the Raj did in India.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and then, of course one must, these days, factor in the entire edifice of Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians (!)

...Oh, and I forgot Lutherans and Presbyterians.

[Big Grin]

Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples [Yipee]

Huia

Not quite.

quote:
(New Zealand) Presbyterian moderator the Rt Rev Ray Coster said a general assembly voted last October, (2012) with 75 per cent support, to uphold marriage as "the loving, faithful union of a man and a woman".

"All ministers are expected to abide by the decision that marriage is a loving, faithful union between a man and a woman," he said.

But a bid to prohibit ministers from conducting same-sex marriages narrowly failed to get the 60 per cent support needed to become church law, allowing ministers to conduct such marriages if they choose to do so.

Not quite a ringing endorsement I feel.

True,and there are some conservatives trying to prevent it, never the less it is not against church policy, and some ministers are looking forward to celebrating such marriages.

Huia

And indeed, here in the UK the United Reforned Church (mix of Presbyterian and Congregational churches) has done a similar thing.

But even when you add them to the Reform Synagogues and the Society of Friends, and maybe the metropolitan church, it is still not a great movement within faith communities to solemnize same sex marriages.

I have received a lot of opposition here on the Ship and a casual observer would assume I am a minority voice like Stephen Green or the Westboro idiots. But the argument for SSMs has been taken before the great historic denominations and the smaller ones too and the case has not been accepted; the arguments for SSMs have not swayed these faith groups.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I can't recall any example in the last 20 years of a couple being refused marriage on the grounds of race -- at least not in the UK. The 1975 Race Relation Acts apply. Anecdotally, YMMV, as the USA seems to be (anecdotally at least) different on this.

Yes, but prior to that Act there were many church leaders who would have refused to marry a mixed-race couple. And no doubt they would have whined about being forced to do something that was against their tradition when the Act was passed. That's the position Mudfrog now finds himself in - repeating the whines of historical racists because he, like they, is soon going to be legally required to abandon his prejudice and bigotry.

It's like he doesn't realise that we all know his kind have been oppressing people forever, like he thinks that if he can get us to see the historical tradition behind it we'll all turn round and say "oh well, if it's traditional then it's OK". What a fuckwit!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But the argument for SSMs has been taken before the great historic denominations and the smaller ones too and the case has not been accepted; the arguments for SSMs have not swayed these faith groups.

Religion being one of the last areas of society to accept progress? Inconcievable!
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
This is a middle eastern practice not necessarily a Roman one.

Moses stipulated standing up, with suitcases packed.
Ha ha ha ha LOL
[Killing me]

He didn't stipulate it for every meal - just for the night of the Exodus!

Oh dear, o dear....
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wrote the last comment because one of the men, Barrie Drewitt, said this (and I'm afraid it sounds like he's having a hissy fit):

quote:
“I am still not getting what I want... It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”
These men are extremely wealthy and their attitude in this case reads like men who have got everything they want but have discovered for the very first time that their wealth can't buy them this and they don't like it!
Ooh, nice bit of selective quoting!!! The full quote puts a slightly different slant on it.

quote:

'I am a Christian - a practising Christian. My children have all been brought up as Christians and are part of the local parish church.' Mr Drewitt-Barlow, 42, who owns a surrogacy company based near the family home in Essex and is opening another in Los Angeles, added: 'If I was a Sikh I could get married at the Gurdwara. Liberal Jews can marry in the Synagogue - just not the Christians.

'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.

He said it was a shame that he and his partner were being forced to take Christians to court to get them to recognise them, but he said the new law did not give them what they have been campaigning for.


I don't know why you think that puts a different slant on it. These men are still suing their church because the church won't do what they want it to do. Appalling behaviour - even if one agrees with SSM these men come across as utterly selfish.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And what date, roughly, was this??

There were Greek colonies in Tyre and Sidon in the 11th - 10th centuries BC, as there were all around the Mediterranean.

Nothing written down in Jewish Scriptures can by any possibility whatever predate Hellenic influence. Some embedded texts may predate it, or derive from a different source, but the Scriptures cannot be said to be totally without Hellenic content or colour.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Sorry - addressed to Hawk

And as I pointed out in Dead Horses, this couple have already successfully challenged the law, on surrogacy and adoption of surrogate children. They now have a family of 5 children, born through surrogacy.

You may see them as unnecessarily difficult, others will see them as campaigners for equality.

eta added who I was replying to around cross-post

[ 16. August 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ha ha ha ha LOL
[Killing me]

He didn't stipulate it for every meal - just for the night of the Exodus!

Oh dear, o dear....

I am referring to the Insititution of the Last Supper, aka Passover.

[Smile]

[ 16. August 2013, 09:50: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ha ha ha ha LOL
[Killing me]

He didn't stipulate it for every meal - just for the night of the Exodus!

Oh dear, o dear....

Fair enough. It must already be more than clear that I am not a theologian, nor a historian.

[Smile]

Evidently.

Nor a reader of your Bible.

[ 16. August 2013, 09:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
Marvin, the conservative view is not simply 'tradition for the sake of tradition'.

I am broadly sympathetic to SSM (and also female bishops, since the arguments tend to follow similar forms). I do not really see why God has an issue with either of those things.

But on a plain reading of the Bible, he does.

Now I can try and argue that plain reading away: either on liberal the-Bible-was-written-by-human-lines, or on progressive revelation lines (which is more my view). But these are just opinions, arguments. God has not sent down a new Bible to support those arguments.

Ultimately, it is the modernisers, probably including myself, who have to make the running, not the traditionalists.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
Sorry for returning, but I really do have to answer this.

My church can not marry inter-racial couples? Who on earth ever said that?? Of course we can and do!

And as far as marriage is concerned, yes, I do conduct weddings though, as with other non-Anglican churches I either have to have a civil registrar present to hear the legal vows or, as was the case with our congregation until recently, a member of our congregation does it as an appointee of the registrar general.

Mudfrog,

I understood Palimpsest to be saying that you can not-marry inter-racial couples, i.e. refuse to marry them, rather than that you cannot marry inter-racial couples, and I believe that churches cannot thus discriminate in the UK - but I have been wrong before [Biased]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But the argument for SSMs has been taken before the great historic denominations and the smaller ones too and the case has not been accepted; the arguments for SSMs have not swayed these faith groups.

Religion being one of the last areas of society to accept progress? Inconcievable!
Yeah, I'm looking forward to you approaching the local mosque to demand a gay wedding.

I also don't believe the church in this country is going to just accept this. I think there might be interesting times ahead.

[ 16. August 2013, 09:53: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Evidently.

Nor a reader of your Bible.

And also with you.

I double checked very rapidly, and the night of the Exodus is indeed Passover, aka the night of the Last Supper, aka the Institution of the Eucharist.

Moses stipulates standing. The Lord and his disciples recline on couches in Roman fashion.

QED.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
Sorry for returning, but I really do have to answer this.

My church can not marry inter-racial couples? Who on earth ever said that?? Of course we can and do!

And as far as marriage is concerned, yes, I do conduct weddings though, as with other non-Anglican churches I either have to have a civil registrar present to hear the legal vows or, as was the case with our congregation until recently, a member of our congregation does it as an appointee of the registrar general.

Mudfrog,

I understood Palimpsest to be saying that you can not-marry inter-racial couples, i.e. refuse to marry them, rather than that you cannot marry inter-racial couples, and I believe that churches cannot thus discriminate in the UK - but I have been wrong before [Biased]

Yes, that is indeed what he was alleging and it's a total untruth. There is no way a Salvation Army officer would refuse to marry people from different cultures and who are a different colour (btw, we are, of course, all of one race anyway - so 'inter-racial' is a misleading term.)

There is nothing in the Bible to forbid people marrying outside their culture.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Marvin, the conservative view is not simply 'tradition for the sake of tradition'.

The conservative view is inherently "tradition for the sake of tradition". In all areas. This just happens to be the one under discussion right now.

quote:
But these are just opinions, arguments.
It all is. Anyone who argues that there's a single "plain reading of scripture" after it's been translated, interpreted and redefined so many times down the centuries is an idiot. And when they then go on to ignore or reinterpret the "plain reading" in virtually every other area of life (see Mudfrog's "the difference between moral and ceremonial laws" crap above), they become a hypocritical idiot.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Evidently.

Nor a reader of your Bible.

And also with you.

I double checked very rapidly, and the night of the Exodus is indeed Passover, aka the night of the Last Supper, aka the Institution of the Eucharist.

Moses stipulates standing. The Lord and his disciples recline on couches in Roman fashion.

QED.

Standing only for that first night. There is nothing to suggest that from the first anniversary of the Exodus that had to do it all again with sandals on and stick in hand. That was only intended for a quick getaway!

The food remained the same as a memorial for the exodus but AFAIK there was not stipulation for standing, sitting, reclining or anything.

Why do you assume that all meals were taken standing up until the Romans told people they could recline??
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yeah, I'm looking forward to you approaching the local mosque to demand a gay wedding.

The local mosque aren't the ones screaming from the rooftops that it shouldn't be allowed.

Of course, they wouldn't marry me anyway, what with me not being Muslim and all.

quote:
I also don't believe the church in this country is going to just accept this. I think there might be interesting times ahead.
Then it is wrong. And if by "interesting times" you mean the continued decline into irrelevance of the Christian faith and the disestablishment of the Church of England, then maybe that's what needs to happen. I'm firmly in favour of the latter, regardless of the church's position on SSM.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I hope you can see the conundrum here. You've got "marriage" being completed by a physical act of penetration, whereas here you agree with my line that "one flesh" is about the intimacy of a relationship and not about particular physical acts.

Nope, I don't see any conundrum there, just a false and unwarranted "either ... or" separation into flesh and spirit. Christianity is an incarnational religion, and it is entirely appropriate that its spirituality is embodied, and its embodiment is spiritual. This is of course very present in the sacraments in general, which are physical signs that bring about spiritual realities. In this particular case, the married couple itself completes the sacrament in a physical act with spiritual significance.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is fine so long as you don't treat the "one flesh" passage as an explanation of why gays can't marry. But that's precisely what Mudfrog is trying to do.

First, gays of course can marry precisely as everybody else. It just so happens that most of them do not wish to have this kind of relationship with the opposite sex. That's their choice. What this whole discussion really is about is (a) whether their relationships with partners of the same sex deserve the same privileges and rights before the law, and (b) whether everybody can be forced to call their relationships with the same sex "marriage". And it is decidedly not the case that (a) and (b) are the same question.

Second, as far as "one flesh" goes, it is in the first place simply a physical sign. At its most basic what is meant there is simply the act of copulation, so that the outer appearance of a joined body comes about. We can read in 1 Cor 6:16 that St Paul considers copulation with a prostitute to bring about "one body", but I think we can confidently say that St Paul did not intend to say that the prostitute and her suitor marry by this act. Also, this obviously makes no sense as far as adultery and fornication are concerned. Adultery does not establish polygamy, and fornication would not exist as sin if the sexual act per se did establish marriage (and thus would immediately render itself licit).

So to become "one flesh", to copulate, makes a physical sign. But it can be a false sign, as prostitution, adultery and fornication shows. The real question is hence whether homosexual copulation is a true sign, or a false sign. Gays surely can become "one flesh" as far as arranging their bodies goes, but what does that mean?

And there it becomes quite simple. You think that the sign to be made for marriage, the marital meaning to be established by copulation, is simply for a "loving relationship". I do not think so, and perhaps more relevantly, my Church does not think so. Rather it is procreation that is the central meaning established for marriage by this sign. Now please spare me the usual bullcrap. This does not exclude (but rather demands) a "loving relationship". This does not mean that all marriages have to be fruitful. This does not mean that evert marriage has to produce as many children as physiologically possible. Etc. What this however establishes is the fundamental "about-ness" of marriage, the very meaning in which it is established and from which its characteristic are derived.

And so this is what copulation, the becoming "one flesh", has to be sign for. This is quite clear in the canon I quoted above. Now, from this perspective it is obviously absurd to claim that gays can marry (their homosexual partner). What they do may be many things, but it sure is not ordered to procreation. Consequently, their copulation, their becoming "one flesh" is a false physical sign as far as a marriage anchored in procreation is concerned.

This is what I understand as "marriage". Given that language is defined by social convention, there may come a time when using this word in this manner is not helpful anymore. Maybe that time has already come, and maybe I should call this sort of thing something else now. As mentioned, "matrimony" would be a good candidate. I'm flexible that way, I do not think that I should fight too hard about mere labels. But I will not accept that I have to give up the very distinction itself.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no way a Salvation Army officer would refuse to marry people from different cultures and who are a different colour

Of course not, now. Equal rights for all races is a fight that was won (legally) decades ago, and now no right-thinking person would oppose it.

In the past though, when the battle was only just starting to be fought? I bet there were many who, like you, argued that they'd never had to marry mixed-race couples before, that they thought it profoundly wrong, and that government shouldn't impose such a fundamental change on them.

And, just like them, you and your kind will in time be seen as the utterly wrong, bigoted fuckwits that you are. I just hope it doesn't take decades to get to that point.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is what I understand as "marriage". Given that language is defined by social convention, there may come a time when using this word in this manner is not helpful anymore. Maybe that time has already come, and maybe I should call this sort of thing something else now. As mentioned, "matrimony" would be a good candidate. I'm flexible that way, I do not think that I should fight too hard about mere labels. But I will not accept that I have to give up the very distinction itself.

Indeed, that time has come. Marriage is no longer 'owned' by the Church, and therefore the word "marriage" is no longer the Church's to define.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no way a Salvation Army officer would refuse to marry people from different cultures and who are a different colour

Of course not, now. Equal rights for all races is a fight that was won (legally) decades ago, and now no right-thinking person would oppose it.

In the past though, when the battle was only just starting to be fought? I bet there were many who, like you, argued that they'd never had to marry mixed-race couples before, that they thought it profoundly wrong, and that government shouldn't impose such a fundamental change on them.

And, just like them, you and your kind will in time be seen as the utterly wrong, bigoted fuckwits that you are. I just hope it doesn't take decades to get to that point.

The Salvation Army has NEVER refused to marriage people from different cultures and of different colour.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're doing it again. The Bible was written over a very, very long period of time. There might be some debate about precisely when the passage in Genesis about 'one flesh' was written, but it sure wasn't written when the Romans were around to influence the culture in Israel.

Most excellent; Panto time.

Oh yes it was.

And what date, roughly, was this??
orfeo is both right and wrong. Jesus quotes this passage from Genesis as Holy Scripture. If Jesus quotes it as divine revelation, there can be absolutely no doubt about its authority.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is what I understand as "marriage". Given that language is defined by social convention, there may come a time when using this word in this manner is not helpful anymore. Maybe that time has already come, and maybe I should call this sort of thing something else now. As mentioned, "matrimony" would be a good candidate. I'm flexible that way, I do not think that I should fight too hard about mere labels. But I will not accept that I have to give up the very distinction itself.

Indeed, that time has come. Marriage is no longer 'owned' by the Church, and therefore the word "marriage" is no longer the Church's to define.
Therefore we are quite at liberty to do as Ingo8 has suggested - refuse matrimony to people who basically want to celebrate their CP with a lavish day out in church; because that is what marriage has become in the eyes of the civil law: A CP celebrated in a religious building. I think what has actually happened is that people have misunderstood the difference between a wedding and a marriage.

Everything that marriage offers in law is covered by a civil partnership. What they want, as revealed so eloquently by the 'we can buy it all' Drewitts, is a wedding.

They are not bothered by the fact that noting will have changed the day after. They have not realised that the day after the ceremony they will have no more civil rights than the day before when they were civil partners.
All they want is the 'human right' (and there is no such thing) to have a day in church with a ceremony.

The fact that the UK government has given them the right to be 'married' actually is a hollow victory because actually they have gained nothing - they can't have their day in church.
They can call themselves 'married' but when they ask each other 'what has changed since we got 'married' in the registrars office?' The answer will be - nothing. They just have a different certificate to enshrine exactly the same legal rights they had when they were civil partners.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Marvin says: And if by "interesting times" you mean the continued decline into irrelevance of the Christian faith and the disestablishment of the Church of England, then maybe that's what needs to happen.
Yes. Both of those things need to happen and both of those things would be a very good thing.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Why do you assume that all meals were taken standing up until the Romans told people they could recline??

Show me where I said that. [Smile]

What I said was that Roman and Hellenic influence in relation to many cultural matters, including sexuality, was pervasive in Judea, and I gave the Last Supper as just one example to be found in Scripture.

You said my comments about Roman cultural influence were nonsense and unBiblical. I gave an example from the Gospels.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus quotes this passage from Genesis as Holy Scripture. If Jesus quotes it as divine revelation, there can be absolutely no doubt about its authority.

The authority of this text is not at issue; nobody has questioned that. What is questioned is the interpretation of the text; what it means in relation to modern understandings of sexuality.

Interpretation is not canonical; therefore discussing interpretation is not attacking the authority of Scripture itself.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yes, but your discussion starts from the wrong temporal point - the 1stC AD - rather than that of the original Hebrew text quoted which - depending on whichever scholarly date you go with - is at least several hundred years prior to that.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Salvation Army has NEVER refused to marriage people from different cultures and of different colour.

Really? Then good, you were on the right side of that particular battle. Which only makes it more of a shame that you're on the wrong side of this one.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

And there it becomes quite simple. You think that the sign to be made for marriage, the marital meaning to be established by copulation, is simply for a "loving relationship". I do not think so, and perhaps more relevantly, my Church does not think so. Rather it is procreation that is the central meaning established for marriage by this sign. Now please spare me the usual bullcrap. This does not exclude (but rather demands) a "loving relationship". This does not mean that all marriages have to be fruitful. This does not mean that evert marriage has to produce as many children as physiologically possible. Etc. What this however establishes is the fundamental "about-ness" of marriage, the very meaning in which it is established and from which its characteristic are derived.

I kind of admire the consistency of the RCC on this issue, even though I do think that refusing to marry paraplegics is rather hard=hearted, but I do not understand why post-menopausal women can get married in a Roman Catholic church.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
They can call themselves 'married' but when they ask each other 'what has changed since we got 'married' in the registrars office?' The answer will be - nothing. They just have a different certificate to enshrine exactly the same legal rights they had when they were civil partners.

Do you refuse to refer to a mixed-sex couple who get 'married' in a registry office as anything other than 'civilly partnered'?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Mudfrog - I read that quotation (in full) differently. From the full quote, he started by saying he and the family are full and practising members of their local CofE congregation. Then he said he wanted to celebrate their partnership in the community / congregation, and I read an implied "and in the eyes of God" - and they can't. That's the thing you're denying them and that's what they're fighting.

I don't think they particularly wanted a party, but a celebration of their partnership the way other couples can.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus quotes this passage from Genesis as Holy Scripture. If Jesus quotes it as divine revelation, there can be absolutely no doubt about its authority.

The authority of this text is not at issue; nobody has questioned that. What is questioned is the interpretation of the text; what it means in relation to modern understandings of sexuality.

Interpretation is not canonical; therefore discussing interpretation is not attacking the authority of Scripture itself.

If your hermeneutic depends upon "modern understandings of sexuality" then your authority isn't scripture, it is "modern understandings of sexuality". The only way to properly honour the authority of scripture is for scripture to inform and - when necessary contradict to "modern understandings of sexuality". The tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog.

[ 16. August 2013, 11:22: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Erik (# 11406) on :
 
Hi all,

This is a genuine question to those who are opposed to same-sex marrage. How would allowing homosexual people the same rights to marrage as heterosexual people practically alter (either positivly or negativly) a heterosexual marrage? How would it alter your marrage (assuming you are married)?

I am not aiming this at a specific person, simply those who hold a anti-same-sex marrage view.

Thanks,
Erik
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no way a Salvation Army officer would refuse to marry people from different cultures and who are a different colour

Of course not, now. Equal rights for all races is a fight that was won (legally) decades ago, and now no right-thinking person would oppose it.

In the past though, when the battle was only just starting to be fought? I bet there were many who, like you, argued that they'd never had to marry mixed-race couples before, that they thought it profoundly wrong, and that government shouldn't impose such a fundamental change on them.

And, just like them, you and your kind will in time be seen as the utterly wrong, bigoted fuckwits that you are. I just hope it doesn't take decades to get to that point.

I really think that you're going off on the wrong angle to accuse certain denominations of racism, to make a point on SSM. I agree that no church is without sin but most of us are trying to do our best with what we understand of Christ's love and justice. That love and justice for us all has its grounding in the laws and teachings of God as they have been found in tradition, theology and reason and not simply in a 21st century take on morality.

Inevitably some people read that in a way that says to them that SSM's are not something they feel is right: hard though that view is, having thought it through in a free society they are entitled to hold it. What they're not entitled to do is to use it as a club.

Perhaps a little history helps here? The warmest welcome afforded to black migrants who arrived in England in the 1950's, was from the Salvation Army and other Protestant Churches.

Sadly the same can't be said of the CofE where black people were asked not to return as "they didn't upset other members of the congregation ... but they were concerned about what people might think."

To my knowledge no Baptist Church has ever behaved in the way you mention -- the Baptist Union has a sizeable number of black majority churches within it, one such West Norwood being the largest in terms of numbers in BUGB. We have had black officials at senior levels, including the Annually elected President.

There's no way of a BUGB church behaving in the way you mention. You'll find that BUGB churches have supported anti racist campaigns for many years and were in the forefront of seeking to repent and make redress to the slave trade. The salvation Army have followed a similar course of action.

A sizeable majority of Baptist Churches (with probably 100% of Independent Baptist Churches), believe they have biblical and other grounds for not performing SSM's.

Baptist eccelesiology means that the local church makes the decision. We are not led or ruled by a hierarchical diktat. A local church can choose to perform SSB's now and when it becomes possible, to register for SSM's. Some will choose to offer this, others won't - both choices being decided by the local congregation, after prayer and reflection. Any kind of insistence on doing this will result in "rebel churches" deregistering for marriages.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
The thing is, I bet Mudfrog wouldn't take any evidence of straight Christian Bridezillas and Groomzillas, be there ever so many of them, wanting 'lavish' heterosexual weddings to indicate that straight people should only be allowed non-religious civil partnerships and barred from any religious ceremony.

It's the double standard and carefully ignoring the dimension of the couple's religious faith which make this line of posting stand out as hostile to gay people, or as the Oxford English Dictionary would have it 'homophobic'.

I often substitute anti-gay for homophobic precisely for the reason of avoiding these diversions and not raising the temperature of a thread but I get truly fed up with posters who think they can post any amount of hostile anti-gay screeds, but woe betide that someone call them out on it.

I think if people are going to pull the 'redefining marriage' shtick in such a way as to make out that they as heterosexuals are the real victims, and pepper their argument with nasty attacks depending on stereotypes against gay people then they're in no position to complain if people describe their posting style as homophobic.

As I've pointed out, things have changed in that regard, at least in the UK. If you take the big headline figures from You Gov - they currently run 54% pro versus 37% against over all. But drill down into them here and you find the numbers strongly opposed to gay marriage (probably the best match for the sort of people who would argue a stridently anti case on a website) stand at 20%.

Drill down by age and you find you have to go to the 60+ age group category to find a majority against gay marriage. Startlingly, if you look at the age groups below, you'll find that in no case does overall opposition to gay marriage climb above a third. Among young people fewer than one in ten 'strongly oppose' gay marriage and only 16% oppose it overall. 77% are in favour, just short of eight out of ten. A big generational shift is going on.

So in general, if you have a large UK contingent that isn't dominated by the 60 plus age group, a strident opponent of gay marriage is going to find him or herself in a small minority - the figure drops below the overall 20%. I think in such circumstances it's not realistic to expect a big pat on the back for expressing that opinion in a gung-ho and sometimes cantankerous way.

I think that ship has sailed. Mudfrog might want to claim that strident nasty-ish opposition to gay marriage shouldn't be perceived as homophobic, but that's like thinking 'nig nog' should still be acceptable on the telly. You've lost that one.

If you don't want to have that sort of rhetoric characterised as homophobic, then you either need to post in more elderly or more conservative circles, or not post that sort of stuff. If you do want to post it, having it characterised as homophobic comes with the territory.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik:
Hi all,

This is a genuine question to those who are opposed to same-sex marrage. How would allowing homosexual people the same rights to marrage as heterosexual people practically alter (either positivly or negativly) a heterosexual marrage? How would it alter your marrage (assuming you are married)?

I am not aiming this at a specific person, simply those who hold a anti-same-sex marrage view.

Thanks,
Erik

It wouldn't alter it at all. That's not my objection to it.

My reasons and objections? Simply put, SSM doesn't reflect my understanding of God's intention for humanity.

In practice (as in faith and belief), I'd rather be obedient where and when I can so that's the perspective I stick to. Others will see it as wrong for all sorts of reasons and I'll admit that I may be incorrect (time will tell) - but here, now, based on what I know and understand, that's where I'll stick. Doesn't stop me recognising that others' mileage may vary.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
What EM said. I would of course have to include divorce in the whole 'not forming part of God's original blueprint' thing and 'declare my interest' as a remarried divorcé....
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What EM said. I would of course have to include divorce in the whole 'not forming part of God's original blueprint' thing and 'declare my interest' as a remarried divorcé....

Indeed. And just to be balanced we in TSA would also say that sex before marriage is wrong, we would say eatra-marital sex is wrong and we would say that divorce is a failure of the ideal and TSA reserves the right not to marry a divorced person either. in fact I have to ask for permission in order to perform the marriage ceremony of a divorced person.

Marriage between divorced people is, in my opinion, an act of grace not a right they can claim.

I would never marry a man to a woman for whom he has left his first wife.

Maybe, in order to be consistent, we need to tighten up our teaching on all morality which, tbh, has become a little careless of late.

[ 16. August 2013, 12:18: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Excuse a brief interupption, I just want to come back to the mention of gas chambers. (I know I tend to correct people about things related to the Nazis, and this may get annoying. I guess you can call me a Nazi Nazi or something.)

Gas chambers were largely used only on Jews. People with disability as well, as well as concentration camp prisoners who were "unfit to work". Experiments with Zyklon B were done on Soviet POW. Ravensbrück (the female camp) saw executions being done via gas chamber of general prisoners. Gays, priests and pastors were not put in gas chambers (well some may been used for experiments, there's one story that Polish RC priests were those used for one experiment in Dachau, though there is no documentation to verify that).

Gays (and I mean males) died in concentration camps due to the other reasons people died there (hunger, torture, malnutrition, etc.) One exception is the Klinkerwerk sub-camp, attached to Sachsenhausen, a quarry where gays were sent as part of the "extermination through work" order from Himmler.

Of course, those killed in gas chambers may have contained gay people, but not for the reason of being gay.

Gays were killed in Berlin and throughout Prussia. I know of one case in 1705. (I know this information through the Gay Museum in Berlin, where I used to work. I can't find a weblink about the killings.)

The thing is, Christians are largely readdressed the parts in the bible that contributed to anti-semitism and therefore to the Shoah. The same hasn't happened regarding how parts of the bible has contributed to homophobia and therefore the killing (say, as planned in Uganda) or the attacks on gays in, say, Wroclaw.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
They can call themselves 'married' but when they ask each other 'what has changed since we got 'married' in the registrars office?' The answer will be - nothing. They just have a different certificate to enshrine exactly the same legal rights they had when they were civil partners.

Do you refuse to refer to a mixed-sex couple who get 'married' in a registry office as anything other than 'civilly partnered'?
No, they are married because they have taken marriage vows that accord with the understanding of what marriage is that we accept - basically: one man and one woman in a voluntary union for life to the exclusion of all others.

Which is, of course, the definition that has been handed down by the church and accepted in civil marriages until now.

[ 16. August 2013, 12:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
missed the edit window - to be clear when I say in my third last para "the figure drops below the overall 20%" - that's the overall for 'strongly opposed', not all degrees of opposition.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Another question (possibly slightly related) that came into my mind, which is:

Even if you don't agree with same-sex marriages, and don't hold them to be the same as opposite-sex ones... would it not be a nice gesture to offer them anyway? It could act as a small apology for the whole 'centuries of oppression' thing, assuming anybody actually feels any iota of shame about that.

I'm not thinking of the RC where there is an issue of Sacramental validity, but for most other churches...? Wouldn't it be a good witness for the Church to offer a concession it doesn't want to make, just for once in its existence?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Another question (possibly slightly related) that came into my mind, which is:

Even if you don't agree with same-sex marriages, and don't hold them to be the same as opposite-sex ones... would it not be a nice gesture to offer them anyway? It could act as a small apology for the whole 'centuries of oppression' thing, assuming anybody actually feels any iota of shame about that.

I'm not thinking of the RC where there is an issue of Sacramental validity, but for most other churches...? Wouldn't it be a good witness for the Church to offer a concession it doesn't want to make, just for once in its existence?

Do you mean, to bless something that God has specifically pronounced against?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

[ 16. August 2013, 12:27: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Another question (possibly slightly related) that came into my mind, which is:

Even if you don't agree with same-sex marriages, and don't hold them to be the same as opposite-sex ones... would it not be a nice gesture to offer them anyway? It could act as a small apology for the whole 'centuries of oppression' thing, assuming anybody actually feels any iota of shame about that.

I'm not thinking of the RC where there is an issue of Sacramental validity, but for most other churches...? Wouldn't it be a good witness for the Church to offer a concession it doesn't want to make, just for once in its existence?

Do you mean, to bless something that God has specifically pronounced against?
Yes and no - rather to do so because one is willing to put aside what *you* believes God teaches in favour of trusting in what *someone else* believes God teaches. And face up to any consequences when the time comes, as we will all have to. Does that make more sense?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Which is, of course, the definition that has been handed down by the church and accepted in civil marriages until now.

That's nice, but as I've just said to Ingo such definitions are not the church's to control any more.

Deal with it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do you mean, to bless something that God has specifically pronounced against?

Who's asking you to bless it? I'll settle for you merely ceasing to fight against it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And what date, roughly, was this??

There were Greek colonies in Tyre and Sidon in the 11th - 10th centuries BC, as there were all around the Mediterranean.

Nothing written down in Jewish Scriptures can by any possibility whatever predate Hellenic influence. Some embedded texts may predate it, or derive from a different source, but the Scriptures cannot be said to be totally without Hellenic content or colour.

...where'd the Romans go? I was taking issue with the Romans.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is what I understand as "marriage". Given that language is defined by social convention, there may come a time when using this word in this manner is not helpful anymore. Maybe that time has already come, and maybe I should call this sort of thing something else now. As mentioned, "matrimony" would be a good candidate. I'm flexible that way, I do not think that I should fight too hard about mere labels. But I will not accept that I have to give up the very distinction itself.

Indeed, that time has come. Marriage is no longer 'owned' by the Church, and therefore the word "marriage" is no longer the Church's to define.
Therefore we are quite at liberty to do as Ingo8 has suggested - refuse matrimony to people who basically want to celebrate their CP with a lavish day out in church; because that is what marriage has become in the eyes of the civil law: A CP celebrated in a religious building. I think what has actually happened is that people have misunderstood the difference between a wedding and a marriage.

Everything that marriage offers in law is covered by a civil partnership. What they want, as revealed so eloquently by the 'we can buy it all' Drewitts, is a wedding.

They are not bothered by the fact that noting will have changed the day after. They have not realised that the day after the ceremony they will have no more civil rights than the day before when they were civil partners.
All they want is the 'human right' (and there is no such thing) to have a day in church with a ceremony.

The fact that the UK government has given them the right to be 'married' actually is a hollow victory because actually they have gained nothing - they can't have their day in church.
They can call themselves 'married' but when they ask each other 'what has changed since we got 'married' in the registrars office?' The answer will be - nothing. They just have a different certificate to enshrine exactly the same legal rights they had when they were civil partners.

What they mostly want is an end to tired semantic games where various words get put in quotes.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Excuse a brief interupption, I just want to come back to the mention of gas chambers. (I know I tend to correct people about things related to the Nazis, and this may get annoying. I guess you can call me a Nazi Nazi or something.)

Gas chambers were largely used only on Jews. People with disability as well, as well as concentration camp prisoners who were "unfit to work". Experiments with Zyklon B were done on Soviet POW. Ravensbrück (the female camp) saw executions being done via gas chamber of general prisoners. Gays, priests and pastors were not put in gas chambers (well some may been used for experiments, there's one story that Polish RC priests were those used for one experiment in Dachau, though there is no documentation to verify that).

Gays (and I mean males) died in concentration camps due to the other reasons people died there (hunger, torture, malnutrition, etc.) One exception is the Klinkerwerk sub-camp, attached to Sachsenhausen, a quarry where gays were sent as part of the "extermination through work" order from Himmler.

Of course, those killed in gas chambers may have contained gay people, but not for the reason of being gay.

I stand corrected. And on reflection this does mirror documentaries I have seen.

EDIT: And to go all Hostly on you, would there happen to be an English-language version of that Wroclaw link?

[ 16. August 2013, 13:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

One reason this is nonsense is that the word 'marriage' is used in a whole array of other contexts not involving people. Unless we're going to start deciding that peaches are female and cream is male, or some such rubbish, the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.

Marry, nuncle, th'whole definition game's afoot!
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The thing is, I bet Mudfrog wouldn't take any evidence of straight Christian Bridezillas and Groomzillas, be there ever so many of them, wanting 'lavish' heterosexual weddings to indicate that straight people should only be allowed non-religious civil partnerships and barred from any religious ceremony.

Yup, it's your textbook prejudice stuff. One obnoxious straight couple is just one obnoxious straight couple. But one gay couple does something that someone doesn't like and suddenly they're representative of all gay couples. This.is.one.couple. This is two people. Personally I don't think they should sue the church either, and for all the hand wringing it's pretty clear that they won't win and that will be that. The vast majority of LGBT people are not going to try to force a church into marrying them when the church doesn't want to do it - because, honestly, how many people actually want to be married by someone who doesn't want to marry them? How does this fit into most people's idea of a dream wedding?

It's a completely unrealistic standard to hold that every single gay person has to behave in ways acceptable to Mudfrog at all times otherwise the whole LGBT community will be held responsible. But it's the same mechanism that you get with all kinds of prejudice - like a white person turning into a screaming racist because they were once mugged by a black guy (had the mugger been white their ethnicity wouldn't be an issue, of course). It's setting up a standard that it's impossible to pass, so that someone will inevitably cause all gay people everywhere to fail it, and then you can shake your head and say "Yup, I knew that the homosexual agenda would lead to this."
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I kind of admire the consistency of the RCC on this issue, even though I do think that refusing to marry paraplegics is rather hard=hearted, but I do not understand why post-menopausal women can get married in a Roman Catholic church.

Because fertility is not at issue for this in RC teaching. Whether God does or does not grant offspring is His to decide, because only God can infuse a human soul. And that remains so even if we can predict that barring the miraculous no offspring will result. What we do - our sexual acts - must be of the kind that could result in offspring, God willing (including God willing over and against the regular workings of nature). Sex is our end of business, conception is God's. Hence impotence is an impediment to marriage, because it unfortunately means that we cannot take care of our sexual end of business properly. Infertility and even sterility is not an impediment to marriage, because whether children come about is for God to decide and arrange.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's nice, but as I've just said to Ingo such definitions are not the church's to control any more. Deal with it.

Actually it would be nice if everybody could snap out of "One definition to rule them all, One definition to find them, One definition to bring them all and in marriage bind them" mode. As usual the sauce for the gander is considered to be totally different to the sauce for the goose, and we all must now call any sort of steady intimate relationship with state recognition "marriage". Well, no. Language can cope perfectly fine with people meaning different things with the same word, as long as the context is clear. For example, the word "energy" has one meaning in physics, and an only mildly related meaning in everyday speech. Nobody seems to worry about that much. It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech. But in reality, there are other agendas at work here and this whole business about what shall be called "marriage" is used by all sides as a proxy for questions about sexual morals. I'd prefer to just discuss those directly, rather than to mess about with language.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

One reason this is nonsense is that the word 'marriage' is used in a whole array of other contexts not involving people. Unless we're going to start deciding that peaches are female and cream is male, or some such rubbish, the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.
This is nonsense. Marriage isn't a value neutral socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of individual people that heterosexuals just happen have unfairly monopolised; marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Language can cope perfectly fine with people meaning different things with the same word, as long as the context is clear. For example, the word "energy" has one meaning in physics, and an only mildly related meaning in everyday speech. Nobody seems to worry about that much. It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech.

By way of comparison, what if a collection of racists - the Klan, maybe - were to loudly and repeatedly declare that as far as they were concerned only white people were proper human beings, and that no matter what anyone else might mean by the term "human" they were never going to accept that it included any non-whites. And furthermore, that no matter how many people used the "inclusive" meaning of the word they would continue to insist that only their definition was valid. And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society?

Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Language can cope perfectly fine with people meaning different things with the same word, as long as the context is clear. For example, the word "energy" has one meaning in physics, and an only mildly related meaning in everyday speech. Nobody seems to worry about that much. It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech.

By way of comparison, what if a collection of racists - the Klan, maybe - were to loudly and repeatedly declare that as far as they were concerned only white people were proper human beings, and that no matter what anyone else might mean by the term "human" they were never going to accept that it included any non-whites. And furthermore, that no matter how many people used the "inclusive" meaning of the word they would continue to insist that only their definition was valid. And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society?

Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.

The difference is that they do not have a foundational text upon which to base their assertions.
The problem with the supporters of ssm is that they, if the are Christians, have to ignore the Bible and have a very low view of its divine authorship.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".
Which would be wrong, no matter how loudly you say it or how popular an understanding it becomes. This is because we aren't arguing about the definition of words; we're talking about the description of existing realities.

[ 16. August 2013, 15:20: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".
But the Bible specifically and consistently, from Moses to Paul and highlighted by Jesus Christ himself, says that those 'two people' are a man and a woman. The only way you can say it's people of the same sex is to ignore what the Bible teaches - and if you do that with this, why stop there?

You might as well ignore everything else the Bible says - about God himself, about spirituality, about ethics, charity, forgiveness - everything!

[ 16. August 2013, 15:23: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The problem with that use of the Bible as a manual is that it is preventing much of God's message to humankind being heard.

A quotation from Vicky Beeching's interview with Rachel Mann:

quote:
We do no honour to the Bible if we treat it like the spiritual equivalent of one of those old Hayne’s Car Manuals, simply offering a step by step way to holy living. Feminist scholars like myself have been keen to outline how some parts of the Bible are ‘texts of terror’ against women; black and womanist theologians have done the same with biblical texts which are used against ethnic minorities. We need to acknowledge that the so-called ‘Seven Knock-Down Passages’ against gay folk are texts of terror too – that is, they have been used to legitimate hate, prejudice and violence. We acknowledge they are there, but as with modern understandings of gender and race relations, we place them in the context of a larger vision of God in Jesus Christ – God as love, reconciliation and compassion.

 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

One reason this is nonsense is that the word 'marriage' is used in a whole array of other contexts not involving people. Unless we're going to start deciding that peaches are female and cream is male, or some such rubbish, the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.
This is nonsense. Marriage isn't a value neutral socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of individual people that heterosexuals just happen have unfairly monopolised; marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.
It's also the term that denotes lots of other things. To treat the word 'marriage' as a special term that was developed for the express purpose of describing a special heterosexual union is to completely ignore both the etymology and the other uses of the exact same word.

DELAYED EDIT TO SPELL IT OUT FOR THE UNUSUALLY THICK PART OF THE AUDIENCE: The word means joining. It doesn't tell you what you're joining.

[ 16. August 2013, 15:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Language can cope perfectly fine with people meaning different things with the same word, as long as the context is clear. For example, the word "energy" has one meaning in physics, and an only mildly related meaning in everyday speech. Nobody seems to worry about that much. It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech.

By way of comparison, what if a collection of racists - the Klan, maybe - were to loudly and repeatedly declare that as far as they were concerned only white people were proper human beings, and that no matter what anyone else might mean by the term "human" they were never going to accept that it included any non-whites. And furthermore, that no matter how many people used the "inclusive" meaning of the word they would continue to insist that only their definition was valid. And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society?

Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.

The difference is that they do not have a foundational text upon which to base their assertions.
The problem with the supporters of ssm is that they, if the are Christians, have to ignore the Bible and have a very low view of its divine authorship.

I just love it when you say things like that. You're so cute when you ignore all the ways that racists quoted the Bible to justify their racism. It's like you've never heard of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The only way you can say it's people of the same sex is to ignore what the Bible teaches

Actually, the way to do it is to look at principles arising rather than assume that narratives are normative. You do exactly the same thing anytime you explain why women don't have to wear hats in church anymore, and the significance of headwear in ancient Corinth, you just don't notice it.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It isn't about "rights to marriage"; it's about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage - according to the view in question - is heterosexual by definition.

So - according to the contrary view in question - it's not about withholding "rights" to a legitimate claim for same sex marriage; it's about asserting that the demand for "marriage" by homosexual people is in fact an illegitimate claim because "same sex marriage" does not and cannot exist.

The demand to send one's son to a single sex girls school is a non-sensical demand because the school by definition is single sex. The demand for "marriage" by homosexuals is a non-sensical demand because marriage by definition is for people of opposite sexes.

So, technically speaking, there it is not an anti SSM stance because same sex marriage cannot in reality exist no matter what people choose to call their particular domestic arrangements or try to insist that other people call those arrangements.

One reason this is nonsense is that the word 'marriage' is used in a whole array of other contexts not involving people. Unless we're going to start deciding that peaches are female and cream is male, or some such rubbish, the exact same word is used in lots of other contexts where it's impossible to imply sexuality, never mind heterosexuality.
This is nonsense. Marriage isn't a value neutral socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of individual people that heterosexuals just happen have unfairly monopolised; marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.
It's also the term that denotes lots of other things. To treat the word 'marriage' as a special term that was developed for the express purpose of describing a special heterosexual union is to completely ignore both the etymology and the other uses of the exact same word.

DELAYED EDIT TO SPELL IT OUT FOR THE UNUSUALLY THICK PART OF THE AUDIENCE: The word means joining. It doesn't tell you what you're joining.

This is a necessary but insufficient part of the full definition. It's simply reductionism in service of an ideological pretext.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh okay, so the FULL definition has those extra bits. Well, no doubt you'll be able to tell me whether buying orders in a broker's office are the male or female half of the transaction. And whether the Oxford Dictionary definition example of "her music is a marriage of funk, jazz and hip hop" is an endorsement of polyandry or polygyny.

Dear God, arguing against completely stupid people is no fun at all. It's just not as satisfying as a proper bit of intellectual combat.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh okay, so the FULL definition has those extra bits. Well, no doubt you'll be able to tell me whether buying orders in a broker's office are the male or female half of the transaction. And whether the Oxford Dictionary definition example of "her music is a marriage of funk, jazz and hip hop" is an endorsement of polyandry or polygyny.

Dear God, arguing against completely stupid people is no fun at all. It's just not as satisfying as a proper bit of intellectual combat.

Actally, marriage, etymologically, is this:


quote:
he word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

[ 16. August 2013, 15:58: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".
Which would be wrong, no matter how loudly you say it or how popular an understanding it becomes. This is because we aren't arguing about the definition of words; we're talking about the description of existing realities.
I knew this bugged me when I saw it, but couldn't immediately figure out why.

It's finally hit me. Apparently this 'existing reality' is a reality that ignores the fact that 16 countries and parts of several other countries have genderless marriage rules. Same sex couples have been getting married for a dozen years. So either your existing reality is trapped in the 20th century or it's on another planet. Your choice.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

Oh yes, I see where the word marriage pops up in that sentence! [Roll Eyes]

And I'm sure the Biblical definition - the one completely omitting the defined word - is included in the statute interpretation laws of every country in the world. It's just so impossible to get away from.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh okay, so the FULL definition has those extra bits. Well, no doubt you'll be able to tell me whether buying orders in a broker's office are the male or female half of the transaction. And whether the Oxford Dictionary definition example of "her music is a marriage of funk, jazz and hip hop" is an endorsement of polyandry or polygyny.

Dear God, arguing against completely stupid people is no fun at all. It's just not as satisfying as a proper bit of intellectual combat.

The extended use of the word 'marriage' is about as relevant to this argument as is the use of male and female terms for bits of electrical audio leads.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech....

This really already is the case, it's just that some people are slow to realize it.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
<first part snipped for brevity> And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society?

Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.

The thing is, we already have this distinction. The RCC for instance does not consider divorced, remarried Catholic people (and once you're a Catholic you're always a Catholic) to be really married. The sticky part is just the showing up and being obnoxious about it. Although getting people like mudfrog or daronmedway to stop doing that could be a little more difficult.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

Oh yes, I see where the word marriage pops up in that sentence! [Roll Eyes]

And I'm sure the Biblical definition - the one completely omitting the defined word - is included in the statute interpretation laws of every country in the world. It's just so impossible to get away from.

Yeah, nice try.

Let's see what Jesus said - O look he uses the M word
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The extended use of the word 'marriage' is about as relevant to this argument as is the use of male and female terms for bits of electrical audio leads.

If it's an argument about language, rather than about morality, of course it's relevant. I wasn't the one who started asserting that same sex marriage was a linguistic impossibility as well as a moral wrong.

But they're two entirely separate lines of argument. The linguistic one will actually be far more important in any court case about this issue here in Australia, so forgive me for finding it interesting.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

Oh yes, I see where the word marriage pops up in that sentence! [Roll Eyes]

And I'm sure the Biblical definition - the one completely omitting the defined word - is included in the statute interpretation laws of every country in the world. It's just so impossible to get away from.

Yeah, nice try.

Let's see what Jesus said - O look he uses the M word

[Killing me]

Way to miss the principle while focusing on a word search.

I'm quite sure that if a man divorces his husband and marries a man, he is also committing adultery by the same criteria. But I find it's best to direct your comments to 98% of your audience rather than 2%.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Random thought: why the hell do you have a man only leave his father and a woman only leave her mother? What happened to the other parent? And is it wrong to have a man give away his daughter at the altar?

If you're going to insist that we can't get away from the Biblical definition, Mudfrog, it would really, really help if you didn't stray from the Biblical definition yourself. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You might as well ignore everything else the Bible says - about God himself, about spirituality, about ethics, charity, forgiveness - everything!

I'd rather do that than oppress people for the sake of my interpretation of it.

I like to think that a God of Love would sympathise with that view. If not, fuck Him.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just love it when you say things like that. You're so cute when you ignore all the ways that racists quoted the Bible to justify their racism. It's like you've never heard of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Not to mention all that stuff about the mark of Cain.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Anyway, this is all academic.

The gay community and their supporters believe they have won a victory here in the UK with the unlikely vote-hungry actions of the Prime Minister but they will never get what they think they've got.

They will get their civil partnerships given a new title 'marriage' but it'll just be a rerun of their cp ceremony with an extra three lines of vows. Hardly a seismic change for them; and nothing will have altered.

What they won't get is the Drewitt-style dressing-up day in their local parish church which, I guess, is all they wanted all along.

Did they really, did they really do all this as far as the law is concerned, just to have a similar 15 minute ceremony in a bland municipal office on a wet Wednesday in February to the one they had a year ago when they had their CP partnership ceremony and still insisted ion calling it a marriage, even then?

What you overseas people seem to forget - or perhaps you didn't know - is that the Government has banned the Church of England, with its lovely parish churches, from conducting SS marriage services.
The government has also enshrined in law that it is is not an offence to refuse to conduct such marriages if one is in a free church.
And neither is it an offence or wrong to openly state one's opposition to SS marriage - it is therefore not a homophobic offence.

In other words the church retains the right to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, to deny the status of gay men and lesbians the status of 'married couple' and no one will be made, even under threat from spoiled rich men like the Drewitts, to give them what they want - their day in church.

The tone of this post is such because we are in Hell and i would say that the law may have changed but practically nothing else has.
That small part of the gay community that fought for 'equality' - even when other parts of the gay community opposed their fight - has not got what it wants in the slightest.

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just love it when you say things like that. You're so cute when you ignore all the ways that racists quoted the Bible to justify their racism. It's like you've never heard of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Not to mention all that stuff about the mark of Cain.
But that is all reading of a prejudice back into a text. You cannot draw out of these stories any intrinsic racism that might be taught there. This is what happens when one doesn't treat the Bible with intelligent respect and reverence.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Erm... I'm pretty sure that a small minority of churches will want to perform same-sex marriages immediately. We'll have to wait a few years (regrettably) for the CofE to follow suit but I'm sure that in forty years it will perfectly uncontroversial and most Christians will wonder what all the fuss was about!
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Because fertility is not at issue for this in RC teaching. Whether God does or does not grant offspring is His to decide, because only God can infuse a human soul. And that remains so even if we can predict that barring the miraculous no offspring will result. What we do - our sexual acts - must be of the kind that could result in offspring, God willing (including God willing over and against the regular workings of nature). Sex is our end of business, conception is God's. Hence impotence is an impediment to marriage, because it unfortunately means that we cannot take care of our sexual end of business properly. Infertility and even sterility is not an impediment to marriage, because whether children come about is for God to decide and arrange.

As is often the case, the way Catholic doctrine categorizes things has me baffled.

I feel like I'm missing something here -- I'm not following why impotence doesn't fall into the same category as infertility, something that's not the person's fault and that God could miraculously overcome. Why isn't desire to have pro-creative sex with one's spouse (or the effort to do so, however failed that effort might be) enough to satisfy the requirement to take care of our end of things? Doesn't intention matter? Or if intention isn't sufficient, why is that?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of Parish Churches in Scotland that will choose to marry gay couples in due course, along with many Scottish Episcopal Churches (and in all likelihood Glasgow Cathedral). Within 3 years is my bet.

The Church of England will take 10-20 years, maybe less if they can agree that it be at the Vicar's discretion as with divorcees.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just love it when you say things like that. You're so cute when you ignore all the ways that racists quoted the Bible to justify their racism. It's like you've never heard of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Not to mention all that stuff about the mark of Cain.
But that is all reading of a prejudice back into a text. You cannot draw out of these stories any intrinsic racism that might be taught there. This is what happens when one doesn't treat the Bible with intelligent respect and reverence.
"But, but... that horrible oppressive interpretation is clearly wrong and derived from the existing prejudices of the reader rather than being part of the text! Not like mine!"
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
By way of comparison, what if a collection of racists - the Klan, maybe - were to loudly and repeatedly declare that as far as they were concerned only white people were proper human beings, and that no matter what anyone else might mean by the term "human" they were never going to accept that it included any non-whites. And furthermore, that no matter how many people used the "inclusive" meaning of the word they would continue to insist that only their definition was valid. And every time there was a discussion, or news article, or event that celebrated all of humanity one or more of them would always show up to point out that any non-whites being included in that discussion/article/event weren't really human.

You are actually mixing issues there: 1) What understanding of a label is appropriate? 2) What consequences arise from that understanding? The (implied) problem with the Klan is of course that they would use their distinct understanding to justify different treatment. However, the issue of different treatment is at least in the UK now over - except precisely where your comparison would now apply in reverse. That is to say, sufficient equality before the civil law has already been reached here, the only thing that "same label, same treatment" still can do is to force communities to perform religious ceremonies against their religious convictions. It is now in the UK imposing language conformity, rather than allowing language diversity, which is a potential threat to basic human rights. Calling a "gay marriage" a civil partnership does not remove any rights before the UK law, but insisting that a civil partnership between gays must be called marriage may yet lead to forcing churches to marry gays against their beliefs.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How would you feel about that? And how would you feel about it if that group wielded genuine power in society? Well, that is how your "it's OK for us to mean one thing and you to mean another" would play out in society.

No, that is simply not true. We know what it is like when marriage is considered to be exclusively heterosexual, before the law and in society. Because, frankly, that was the status until recently. And even if one conflates all mistreatment of homosexuals with this issue, that was still nowhere near to the horrors inflicted by racism. Sorry, but that is just not a valid comparison. Furthermore, the specific injustice of not allowing gays to marry - as far as it is one - certainly is much less than the sum total of all injustices committed against gays. One cannot simply reduce all that has happened to gays throughout history to the question of marriage.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".
Which would be wrong, no matter how loudly you say it or how popular an understanding it becomes. This is because we aren't arguing about the definition of words; we're talking about the description of existing realities.
I knew this bugged me when I saw it, but couldn't immediately figure out why.

It's finally hit me. Apparently this 'existing reality' is a reality that ignores the fact that 16 countries and parts of several other countries have genderless marriage rules. Same sex couples have been getting married for a dozen years. So either your existing reality is trapped in the 20th century or it's on another planet. Your choice.

And there are plenty of people on the inter web who claim to have been to another planet. Guess what? They haven't.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
IngoB:
quote:
Because fertility is not at issue for this in RC teaching. Whether God does or does not grant offspring is His to decide, because only God can infuse a human soul. And that remains so even if we can predict that barring the miraculous no offspring will result. Whether God does or does not grant offspring is His to decide, because only God can infuse a human soul. And that remains so even if we can predict that barring the miraculous no offspring will result.
I think I can safely say that, barring the miraculous, no offspring will result from a gay marriage. So that makes SSM alright according to Catholic teaching? Cheers!
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Random thought: why the hell do you have a man only leave his father and a woman only leave her mother? What happened to the other parent? And is it wrong to have a man give away his daughter at the altar?

If you're going to insist that we can't get away from the Biblical definition, Mudfrog, it would really, really help if you didn't stray from the Biblical definition yourself. [Big Grin]

Don't you lot know your Bible? Genesis 2.24 clearly states:
quote:
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Only the man leaves his parents - presumably in a truly Biblical marriage he moves in with her family.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two heterosexual people.

You were so close - only one word away. The definition you're looking for is "marriage is the term which denotes the socio-relational and spiritual conjoining of two people".
Which would be wrong, no matter how loudly you say it or how popular an understanding it becomes. This is because we aren't arguing about the definition of words; we're talking about the description of existing realities.
I knew this bugged me when I saw it, but couldn't immediately figure out why.

It's finally hit me. Apparently this 'existing reality' is a reality that ignores the fact that 16 countries and parts of several other countries have genderless marriage rules. Same sex couples have been getting married for a dozen years. So either your existing reality is trapped in the 20th century or it's on another planet. Your choice.

And there are plenty of people on the inter web who claim to have been to another planet. Guess what? They haven't.
Right! Trapped in the previous century it is, then.

Existing realities my arse.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Erm... I'm pretty sure that a small minority of churches will want to perform same-sex marriages immediately. We'll have to wait a few years (regrettably) for the CofE to follow suit but I'm sure that in forty years it will perfectly uncontroversial and most Christians will wonder what all the fuss was about!
If anecdotal evidence is to be believed, if you know the "right" Vicar you can have the service done. OK there might not be a signature in the book but in conducting a service in the eyes of God and making the relevant vows doesn't (arguably) need the writing (which is after all simple confirmation of what has happened).

Did I mention that some have been doing this clandestinely for 20 years?
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

EDIT: And to go all Hostly on you, would there happen to be an English-language version of that Wroclaw link?

I used the link for the photo more than for the text. Here's an imperfect Google translation.

[ 16. August 2013, 18:10: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Erm... I'm pretty sure that a small minority of churches will want to perform same-sex marriages immediately. We'll have to wait a few years (regrettably) for the CofE to follow suit but I'm sure that in forty years it will perfectly uncontroversial and most Christians will wonder what all the fuss was about!
If anecdotal evidence is to be believed, if you know the "right" Vicar you can have the service done. OK there might not be a signature in the book but in conducting a service in the eyes of God and making the relevant vows doesn't (arguably) need the writing (which is after all simple confirmation of what has happened).

Did I mention that some have been doing this clandestinely for 20 years?

And no certificate, no registration, no legality so what's the point?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And no certificate, no registration, no legality so what's the point?

The point is that they are married in the eyes of God - and that's all that matters.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Being married is the point. The legal rights that come with it are convenient but marriage in Christian tradition is the offering of one's relationship to God for his blessing.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Erm... I'm pretty sure that a small minority of churches will want to perform same-sex marriages immediately. We'll have to wait a few years (regrettably) for the CofE to follow suit but I'm sure that in forty years it will perfectly uncontroversial and most Christians will wonder what all the fuss was about!
If anecdotal evidence is to be believed, if you know the "right" Vicar you can have the service done. OK there might not be a signature in the book but in conducting a service in the eyes of God and making the relevant vows doesn't (arguably) need the writing (which is after all simple confirmation of what has happened).

Did I mention that some have been doing this clandestinely for 20 years?

And no certificate, no registration, no legality so what's the point?
It's no different to what happens in some countries or in some UK churches who don't have a registrar now. The legal bit gets done first elsewhere, followed by the religious bit in church.

Fancy people wanting to simply get married in front of the God they believe in, in the church they worship at each week. Fancy.

Tubbs
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I feel like I'm missing something here -- I'm not following why impotence doesn't fall into the same category as infertility, something that's not the person's fault and that God could miraculously overcome.

If God did miraculously overcome impotence, then the couple of course could proceed to marry. But they have to wait until that happens, because their sexual act is what marriage is about on the human side. Whereas they do not have to wait until God (miraculously) overcomes their infertility or sterility, because conception is not what marriage is about on the human side. That's God's business. If God is slow in delivering children as consequence of appropriate human sexual acts, whether offspring would be miraculous or not, then that's God's decision. Children are God's free gift to a couple.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Why isn't desire to have pro-creative sex with one's spouse (or the effort to do so, however failed that effort might be) enough to satisfy the requirement to take care of our end of things? Doesn't intention matter? Or if intention isn't sufficient, why is that?

Marriage is provided by God as Divine framework for a specific sexual act (vaginal intercourse) appropriate for procreation. If that specific sexual act is not going to occur, then there is no reason for establishing this framework. The intent to have vaginal intercourse when that is not possible (say due to a medical condition) should result in prayers to God to provide a cure, so that it becomes possible. If one instead attempts to marry, then one asks for the frame without being able to fill it. How is that following God's intentions for marriage? As far as trying but failing goes: It is one thing to allow for human variability. Sex does not have obey some porn ideals of sexual prowess. It is another thing to desperately attempt what one cannot really do. God has given humanity many ways to please Him, and if it is rather clearly not through the exercise of one's sexual faculties ("for there are eunuchs who have been so from birth..."), then again it is not following God's will to attempt to make it happen at all costs. That's more a denial of one's cross than a heroic attempt to carry it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Marriage is provided by God as Divine framework for a specific sexual act (vaginal intercourse) appropriate for procreation. If that specific sexual act is not going to occur, then there is no reason for establishing this framework.

As long as I live, I will never agree with this statement. Never.

No reason? Forget love. Forget commitment. Forget the sheer intensity possible in a relationship. God is only interested in giving you official authorisation to make babies. God is not a romantic poet, he's a bored office clerk.


EDIT: I've half a mind to head into the Circus and propose a rewrite of the Song of Songs to make it more focused on the true meaning of marriage according to Ingo. It could be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

[ 16. August 2013, 18:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I was going to post that half a mind was all one needed in the Circus, but after reviewing IngoB and Mudfrog's posts on this thread, I realised the same can be said for the rest of the Ship.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And no certificate, no registration, no legality so what's the point?

The point is that they are married in the eyes of God - and that's all that matters.
Er, no they are not. God will not bless or affirm that which he has expressly forbidden.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Marriage is provided by God as Divine framework for a specific sexual act (vaginal intercourse) appropriate for procreation. If that specific sexual act is not going to occur, then there is no reason for establishing this framework.

What a miserable, boring god you serve.


[Frown]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And no certificate, no registration, no legality so what's the point?

The point is that they are married in the eyes of God - and that's all that matters.
Er, no they are not. God will not bless or affirm that which he has expressly forbidden.
Except that she hasn't. A couple of obscure texts does not = forbidden.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And no certificate, no registration, no legality so what's the point?

The point is that they are married in the eyes of God - and that's all that matters.
Er, no they are not. God will not bless or affirm that which he has expressly forbidden.
What were folk just saying about reading your own prejudices into scripture? It's possible I haven't read the right bit of the Bible, but I don't recall mention anywhere in it of lifelong, committed relationships based on love and mutual respect between couples of the same sex.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And no certificate, no registration, no legality so what's the point?

The point is that they are married in the eyes of God - and that's all that matters.
Er, no they are not. God will not bless or affirm that which he has expressly forbidden.
Except that she hasn't. A couple of obscure texts does not = forbidden.
Neither a couple, nor obscure.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
God will not bless or affirm that which he has expressly forbidden.

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

-------

I'm sure, Mudfrog, that you keep kosher? We see from this pericope that God does, in fact, bless what he has expressly forbidden.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
mousethief: About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

I really like the follow-up on this. In verse 15, the voice (God) says to Peter "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Peter however decided to extend this a bit further, apparently all by himself. In verse 28, he says: "But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean." This isn't about non-kosher animals. Peter understood that.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In verse 28, he says: "But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean." This isn't about non-kosher animals. Peter understood that.

Poor Peter. He missed a perfect opportunity to supply a convenient literalistic dodge for anyone who wanted to completely kill the point.
(IOW-- good call. )

[ 16. August 2013, 20:24: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
God will not bless or affirm that which he has expressly forbidden.

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

-------

I'm sure, Mudfrog, that you keep kosher? We see from this pericope that God does, in fact, bless what he has expressly forbidden.

Indeed - he did bless what was previously forbideen. And we are expressly told that he blessed the food - and Jesus said as much to the Pharisees.

But there is nothing to suggest he has changed his mind on any of the moral laws of Leviticus, nor that he has extended the one flesh relationship further than the man and the women who leave their families to become 'one flesh.'

The fact that we still say that God does not approve of same sex relations because he hasn't specifically said 'It's OK now' means that we still have the prohibition on adultery, infidelity, and the other forms of divinely-prohibited sexual activity. These are all mentioned together and form the wider context for the ban on homosexual sex.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

I really like the follow-up on this. In verse 15, the voice (God) says to Peter "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Peter however decided to extend this a bit further, apparently all by himself. In verse 28, he says: "But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean." This isn't about non-kosher animals. Peter understood that.
The context of that particular quote, about not calling anyone unclean, is the invitation to go to Cornelius' house - which Pharisaic law forbade and which Jesus explicitly showed by his actions was no longer relevant. The Gospel is for all and there is no Jew of gentile in Christ.

That is a long way from saying 'therefore all the moral laws of the OT are done away with. Well the ones we want done away with at any rate. Jesus certainly never said so not implied any relaxing of the sexual morality laws. in fact he made them sterner - ever looked at someone with lust?

He told the woman caught in adultery "Go and sin no more!"

I see no evidence in the Gospels, the Acts or the Epistles for the relaxation of the moral law. ceremonial law yes, (and that includes eating pork and visiting Gentiles), but not morality.

[ 16. August 2013, 20:34: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As long as I live, I will never agree with this statement. Never. No reason? Forget love. Forget commitment. Forget the sheer intensity possible in a relationship. God is only interested in giving you official authorisation to make babies. God is not a romantic poet, he's a bored office clerk.

And why precisely should we forget any of that? No, the truth is that you are fixated on sex here. Unless you can fuck whom you like, neither love nor commitment nor the sheer intensity possible in a relationship have any meaning to you. Apparently. You must be able to screw, or it all comes to naught. You cannot love or commit or have an intense relationship without exercising your genitalia, and God is to blame. Right...

Now, this whole argument is really, really old. I recommend Genesis 3 for further reading. So unreasonable of God to arbitrarily deny such tasty and beneficial fruit... It was the original sin of humanity to think that they could well and truly decide themselves what is right and important, and that will remain the downfall of the children of Adam. How often have you mumbled "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"? Did you really think that there was no bite in the Lord's prayer?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed - he did bless what was previously forbideen.

So you admit you misspoke.

quote:
But there is nothing to suggest he has changed his mind on any of the moral laws of Leviticus,
Is the prohibition against "man lying with man" a moral law? Some rabbis think it is a ceremonial law. If it is a moral law, is it absolute, or does it refer to a particular context? Since Lesbianism isn't mentioned, that is okay?

quote:
The fact that we still say that God does not approve of same sex relations because he hasn't specifically said 'It's OK now' means that we still have the prohibition on adultery, infidelity, and the other forms of divinely-prohibited sexual activity. These are all mentioned together and form the wider context for the ban on homosexual sex.
The fact you say that proves nothing. To claim so would be circular.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

am I the only one, while reading this thread, to keep picturing the premise of some B horror flick involving a plastic surgeon and grotesque, merged bodies?

just me, then?

carry on.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But there is nothing to suggest he has changed his mind on any of the moral laws of Leviticus

[brick wall]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As long as I live, I will never agree with this statement. Never. No reason? Forget love. Forget commitment. Forget the sheer intensity possible in a relationship. God is only interested in giving you official authorisation to make babies. God is not a romantic poet, he's a bored office clerk.

And why precisely should we forget any of that? No, the truth is that you are fixated on sex here. Unless you can fuck whom you like, neither love nor commitment nor the sheer intensity possible in a relationship have any meaning to you. Apparently. You must be able to screw, or it all comes to naught. You cannot love or commit or have an intense relationship without exercising your genitalia, and God is to blame. Right...

What the blazes are you on about?

Oh yes, that's right. You don't actually use sex as part of expressing your deepest, closest relationship with another human being, do you? I mean, sure, you love your wife a hell of a lot, but you don't express that bond through sex. No, that's just DUTY. Baby-making duty.

Either 'one flesh' is about a deep union or it's just a physical penile insertion thing. Make up your mind.

EDIT: It is freaking BIZARRE to have you tell me I'm making it all about sex when you are the one saying that you can't have a marriage without sex in it. Absolutely bizarre. The debate is about MARRIAGE. I hate to break it to you, but gays aren't protesting that you're denying them their right to have sex. The law on that changed decades ago.

And it is even MORE bizarre to suggest that the goal of gays in having marriage is to have more sex! I mean, what the fuck, dude? The whole point of marriage is committing. It's the exact opposite of screwing whoever I like. If I just wanted to screw whoever I like, why would I give a shit about marriage? Why would a heterosexual give a shit about marriage if their goal was to have lots of sex whenever they felt like it??

[ 16. August 2013, 21:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But there is nothing to suggest he has changed his mind on any of the moral laws of Leviticus

[brick wall]
No sex with close family
No sex with your father,
No sex with your mother,
No sex with your granddaughter,
No sex with your aunty,
No sex with your uncle
No sex with your daughter in law
No sex with your sister in law
No threesomes with a woman and her daughter
No sex with two sisters
No approaching a woman to persuade her to have sex during her period
No affairs with your neighbour's wife
No sacrificing your kids to Molech,
No having sex with another man
No one (man or woman) to have sex with an animal


no lesbianism mentioned here - it must be allowed.
No pedophilia here either - maybe that's allowed too.

Yes, we know that gay sex is prohibited but we like that so, let's pretend it's not on the list.
The others are all subjects for pornography (so I'm told [Smile] ) but we'll pretend we're not interested in them and allow God to have his prohibition.

But out of all that list we'll ignore the gay sex one while nodding wisely and agreeing with the prohibition on all the rest.

Strange.

[ 16. August 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Ah, well, at least I never made any graven images.

[Tear]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Thanks for the explanation, IngoB.

But this --

quote:
Did you really think that there was no bite in the Lord's prayer?
Oh, please. As if you've noticed the bite and those who disagree with you on this subject haven't? We disagree about what God's will is, but we all know it's incredibly difficult to conform to God's will.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I wasn't aware that anyone was particularly bothered about having sex while the female partner is menstruating, but you learn something new every day.

The difference is that each of the other things is demonstrably harmful to one or both participants - it is an act the clearly violates our obligation of love towards one another. The same cannot be said of all homosexual relationships. This also explains why paedophilia, despite not being explicitly forbidden, is clearly immoral.

The point here is that conservatives, like the Pharisees, are attempting to keep the letter of the law while violating its spirit.

Separating the list of abominations into ceremonial and moral on the basis of whether or not they're about sex is simplistic and absurd. The rules about sex during menstruation are fairly transparently about contact with blood and the consequent ritual uncleanness, for example.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No sex with two sisters

Um, in case you hadn't noticed, marriage with a deceased wife's sister ("sex with two sisters") was legalized in the UK before the end of the 19th century.

John
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I wasn't aware that anyone was particularly bothered about having sex while the female partner is menstruating, but you learn something new every day.


The prohibition is 'approaching' the woman for sex - ie persuading/forcing her when she might not want it at that time.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No sex with two sisters

Um, in case you hadn't noticed, marriage with a deceased wife's sister ("sex with two sisters") was legalized in the UK before the end of the 19th century.

John

The verse actually says:
Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sex with her while your wife is living. I didn't necessarily mean a threesome with 2 sisters but don't have sex with your wife and her sister, as in have an affair with her.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I wasn't aware that anyone was particularly bothered about having sex while the female partner is menstruating, but you learn something new every day.

The difference is that each of the other things is demonstrably harmful to one or both participants - it is an act the clearly violates our obligation of love towards one another. The same cannot be said of all homosexual relationships. This also explains why paedophilia, despite not being explicitly forbidden, is clearly immoral.

The point here is that conservatives, like the Pharisees, are attempting to keep the letter of the law while violating its spirit.

Separating the list of abominations into ceremonial and moral on the basis of whether or not they're about sex is simplistic and absurd. The rules about sex during menstruation are fairly transparently about contact with blood and the consequent ritual uncleanness, for example.

Interesting then that the gay sex one is right bang in the middle of it all. You are evidently more knowledgable than God about the reason for the prohibition in this case - so much so that you can tell God he is wrong.

You are bothered that sex in these cases is not right as far as the other person is concerned.
Why will you simply not accept that gay sex is aghainst God's will as far as HE is concerned?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Because it isn't against God's will - it's against YOUR will.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I wasn't aware that anyone was particularly bothered about having sex while the female partner is menstruating, but you learn something new every day.


The prohibition is 'approaching' the woman for sex - ie persuading/forcing her when she might not want it at that time.
Well that's a novel interpretation of "approach." In my dictionary it means "draw near" not "force." Which dictionary do you use?

(as an aside, when a judge tells counsel "You may approach the bench" --- [Eek!] [Eek!] )
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why will you simply not accept that gay sex is aghainst God's will as far as HE is concerned?

Because we're Christians.

[ 16. August 2013, 22:51: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:


1. His church doesn't have to marry gay people

2. just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.

3. Yet he keeps shouting his church doesn't have to marry Gay people as though anyone has said they have to.

1. No - they don't, agreed.

2. They can marry interracial couples as Salvation Army Buildings are licensed to conduct marriages on behalf of the local Registrar. I can't recall any example in the last 20 years of a couple being refused marriage on the grounds of race -- at least not in the UK. The 1975 Race Relation Acts apply. Anecdotally, YMMV, as the USA seems to be (anecdotally at least) different on this.

I think you're trying to compare two incomparable sets of circumstances here.

3. Nope they don't but the law is framed poorly as it assumes that all churches who conduct weddings are Anglican Churches (ie under the semi official control of the state). Many churches aren't and their ecclesiology leaves them vulnerable to being asked to do things they believe to be wrong. A legal case brought against a Baptist church who refuse to do a SMM would have a far better chance of success than it currently has with the Anglican (State) Church. Yes, that's making a point but it cannot (not won't) win. The law just isn't there to do that.

I am perhaps wrong about the UK in how the rules for the COE apply to other denominations.


To be caler, I'm not saying the Salvation Army doesn't perform inter-racial marriages, They do. I'm saying that if they decided not to based on scriptural interpretation they would not be required to. This is true in the US. Is it not true in the UK?

Can the Catholic church be required to marry a non-Catholic and a Catholic divorcee in the way a COE vicar might be required to do?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
No. The only way a divorced Catholic can remarry in the Church is by seeking an annulment of the first marriage.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:


Actually it would be nice if everybody could snap out of "One definition to rule them all, One definition to find them, One definition to bring them all and in marriage bind them" mode. As usual the sauce for the gander is considered to be totally different to the sauce for the goose, and we all must now call any sort of steady intimate relationship with state recognition "marriage". Well, no. Language can cope perfectly fine with people meaning different things with the same word, as long as the context is clear. For example, the word "energy" has one meaning in physics, and an only mildly related meaning in everyday speech. Nobody seems to worry about that much. It would be entirely feasible to have "marriage" mean one thing in Church, and something only mildly related in everyday speech. But in reality, there are other agendas at work here and this whole business about what shall be called "marriage" is used by all sides as a proxy for questions about sexual morals. I'd prefer to just discuss those directly, rather than to mess about with language.

Too little, too late. There were far too many obnoxious religious sorts insisting that there has to be a single definition and it didn't include gay people. In fact you do it in your post again. So now, , for clarity the state defines the single definition as the legal relationship it calls marriage and it does include gay people, at least in the state I live in.

As a consolation , you still have the word "Catholic" to play the "there's only one definition and it's mine game..."


As for your other suggestion that you're going to grab other words that have secular meaning and claim that they only have the definition your religion gives it, that's not going to work either. If you want to do that, start with a fresh term; perhaps "Catholic Propagation Partnership" since breeding seems too so integral to your definition. Don't forget to trademark it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
CofE clergy are not required to marry someone who has been married and divorced. The PCC of a CofE church can set as policy that the church will marry divorces, in consultation with the minister, but it is an opt in choice. And the CofE expressly forbids a marriage between a couple if they were involved in the breakdown of the previous marriage.


There is a difference between single-sex marriage and civil partnerships. Civil partnerships forbid the use of any words or lyrics that refer to a marriage, so the Wedding March cannot be sung, and no reference to any religion are allowed.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Question for IngoB and Mudfrog re obedience to God and clear statement: Do you support stoning disobedient children to death? It is a clear and uncomplicated statement, so is it good?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Question for IngoB and Mudfrog re obedience to God and clear statement: Do you support stoning disobedient children to death? It is a clear and uncomplicated statement, so is it good?

No, because the example of Jesus is to say neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
That does not answer the question. Where does Jesus say that the stoning is wrong? Especially if the child continues to be disobedient? And where does Jesus, if he changes the rules, say homosexual relationships are wrong?
And is there not a statement Jesus made saying he was not here to change the rules? One that anti-gay Christians trot out?

[ 17. August 2013, 00:24: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic.


The gay community and their supporters believe they have won a victory here in the UK with the unlikely vote-hungry actions of the Prime Minister but they will never get what they think they've got.

They will get their civil partnerships given a new title 'marriage' but it'll just be a rerun of their cp ceremony with an extra three lines of vows. Hardly a seismic change for them; and nothing will have altered.


What they won't get is the Drewitt-style dressing-up day in their local parish church which, I guess, is all they wanted all along.

Did they really, did they really do all this as far as the law is concerned, just to have a similar 15 minute ceremony in a bland municipal office on a wet Wednesday in February to the one they had a year ago when they had their CP partnership ceremony and still insisted ion calling it a marriage, even then?

What you overseas people seem to forget - or perhaps you didn't know - is that the Government has banned the Church of England, with its lovely parish churches, from conducting SS marriage services.
The government has also enshrined in law that it is is not an offence to refuse to conduct such marriages if one is in a free church.
And neither is it an offence or wrong to openly state one's opposition to SS marriage - it is therefore not a homophobic offence.

In other words the church retains the right to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, to deny the status of gay men and lesbians the status of 'married couple' and no one will be made, even under threat from spoiled rich men like the Drewitts, to give them what they want - their day in church.

The tone of this post is such because we are in Hell and i would say that the law may have changed but practically nothing else has.
That small part of the gay community that fought for 'equality' - even when other parts of the gay community opposed their fight - has not got what it wants in the slightest.

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Yeah, it's all for the waffle irons.

I may miss a note or two as an overseas person, but as a gay person I'm happy to have marriage in my state. you'll find the vast majority of gays in the UK are also happy to have the option. ( I exclude the sad pathological case S-M of course so don't cite him as representative).

As for the U.K. I expect it to follow the same path as the states in the US. The refusal to marry gay couples in a church quickly becomes an embarrassment to tip toe away from and pretend it never happened. I expect a number of the non COE churches to start marrying gay couples as soon as allowed.

As for the churches who don't, I'm happy for them to diminish themselves by their stance. In the US we have the racial example as a predecessor. Many churches are still largely de facto segregated but no longer cite the theology they once used. A hundred years after the civil war a number of them have made efforts to cure themselves.

If you want an example of how your own church changes, you often cite that the SA does not exclude gay people when it has been quite vehemently opposed to having to allow gay employees for service contracts. They are now they're busy pretending their long history of discrimination against gays never happened.And a fair amount of that has been driven by organized gay resistance to having the SA be allowed to get away with that.

As for your prediction that the COE will never do it, I'm not sure how long you think the COE is going last the plagues caused by rotting dead horses and who will be left attending.
However I expect it to go the way of the Episcopal church in Canada if it manages to not die of this and other dead horses.

The NY Times had a post the other day, a year after Gay Marriage was legalized. It was about gay couples who now have to deal with pressure from their parents to get married. To quote one, "a few years ago they said they would kill themselves if we came out to the family." Now they are asking "Where are my grandchildren?"

So it's not all about your church. A number of gays will want their church wedding, but they are going to find a church that will do it and that church will now be able to do the wedding if they are willing to do so. That's a big win that MudFrog ignores.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Simple understanding of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not disagree with the verdict. He simply told the accusers that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then said that he did not condemn the woman and that, showing he agreed that she had indeed committed the crime, told her to go and sin no more. I can't make it any straighter than that.

As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

am I the only one, while reading this thread, to keep picturing the premise of some B horror flick involving a plastic surgeon and grotesque, merged bodies?

just me, then?

carry on.

You want Plato's Cave.. the theater down at the end of the hall.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
No. The only way a divorced Catholic can remarry in the Church is by seeking an annulment of the first marriage.

What I'm asking is; can a non COE church in the UK make any restriction it wants on who it will marry? Sex, Divorce, Race or Surname? That's the US situation.

My impression is that the UK law also allows churches not to marry ss marriages. Is this so? And if so, why does Mudfrog keep whining about how his church doesn't want to be forced to marry ssm couples?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
UK marriages require a registrar to complete the legal bit. The CofE is a special case as the clergy can act as registrars. So SSM in churches other than the CofE would require a church that is registered for marriage and the presence of a registrar or someone licensed to act on their behalf.

UK churches and registrars have to check that any marriage is between legitimate UK citizens or those with a right to stay in the UK. Those marrying also have to declare that they are not closely related and show their decree absolute if they have been previously married. To be married in a CofE church that church has to have agreed to marry divorcees and those previously married have to satisfy the minister that the couple now marrying were not involved in the divorce.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.

Where did this convoluted exegesis of a very simple sentence come from? You can't possibly believe this is the plain surface meaning of the text.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

There is a difference between single-sex marriage and civil partnerships. Civil partnerships forbid the use of any words or lyrics that refer to a marriage, so the Wedding March cannot be sung, and no reference to any religion are allowed.

So much for any plans to have the partnership celebrated at a performance of "A Midsummer's Night Dream" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.

Where did this convoluted exegesis of a very simple sentence come from? You can't possibly believe this is the plain surface meaning of the text.
Agreed. This is eisegesis at its finest.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Ah, well, at least I never made any graven images.

[Tear]

I've got a wallet full of them. And I've heard nasty rumors about your surreptitious hobby of stamp collecting.

[ 17. August 2013, 02:18: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of Parish Churches in Scotland that will choose to marry gay couples in due course, along with many Scottish Episcopal Churches (and in all likelihood Glasgow Cathedral). Within 3 years is my bet.

Is there going to be a business revival at Gretna Green? [Smile]

[ 17. August 2013, 02:21: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Simple understanding of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not disagree with the verdict. He simply told the accusers that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then said that he did not condemn the woman and that, showing he agreed that she had indeed committed the crime, told her to go and sin no more. I can't make it any straighter than that.

As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.

How you decided that stoning, which Jesus in practice stopped by saying what he said, falls on the ceremonial side of this distinction, I've no idea.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Ah, nice to see someone's got ol' Peter's back in the loophole department...)
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:


That is a long way from saying 'therefore all the moral laws of the OT are done away with. Well the ones we want done away with at any rate. Jesus certainly never said so not implied any relaxing of the sexual morality laws. in fact he made them sterner - ever looked at someone with lust?

He told the woman caught in adultery "Go and sin no more!"

I see no evidence in the Gospels, the Acts or the Epistles for the relaxation of the moral law. ceremonial law yes, (and that includes eating pork and visiting Gentiles), but not morality.

The Peter story does set a precedent for a spiritual leader reevaluating a cultural prohibition toward the better interest of the community.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What the blazes are you on about?

Oh yes, that's right. You don't actually use sex as part of expressing your deepest, closest relationship with another human being, do you? I mean, sure, you love your wife a hell of a lot, but you don't express that bond through sex. No, that's just DUTY. Baby-making duty.

Either 'one flesh' is about a deep union or it's just a physical penile insertion thing. Make up your mind.

EDIT: It is freaking BIZARRE to have you tell me I'm making it all about sex when you are the one saying that you can't have a marriage without sex in it. Absolutely bizarre. The debate is about MARRIAGE. I hate to break it to you, but gays aren't protesting that you're denying them their right to have sex. The law on that changed decades ago.

And it is even MORE bizarre to suggest that the goal of gays in having marriage is to have more sex! I mean, what the fuck, dude? The whole point of marriage is committing. It's the exact opposite of screwing whoever I like. If I just wanted to screw whoever I like, why would I give a shit about marriage? Why would a heterosexual give a shit about marriage if their goal was to have lots of sex whenever they felt like it??

I am so glad I logged off and let smarter folk (you) tackle Bingo's post.All I could come up with at the time was "sputtersputter THAT'S BANANAS!"

The above is exactly what my befuddled brain was going for.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Here's a crazy-making thought:
It is probable that everybody reading this thread is finding that it reinforces their existing belief set / philosophy. Discussing these arrayed points of contention may actually be actively counter-productive to social harmony.

Humans suuuuuuck.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
People do change their minds on this topic. Even Presidents. But then it's only the stubborn ones we drag to Hell.

What the fuck are you talking about social harmony down here for, anyway?
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Mudfrog, never is a long time. Can you rant on behalf of all other churches?

And just because it is not a legal offence for churches to discriminate, doesn't mean it's not homophobia.

Huia
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:


Humans suuuuuuck.

Liek vacuum cleaners,I've been told.

And orfeo, please undo whatever crazy text-predicting hack you have performed on my computer, because you did it again.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Here's a crazy-making thought:
It is probable that everybody reading this thread is finding that it reinforces their existing belief set / philosophy. Discussing these arrayed points of contention may actually be actively counter-productive to social harmony.

Humans suuuuuuck.

They aren't called dead horses for nothing.

Social harmony is overrated. The abolitionists were counter-productive to social harmony.

Oddly enough, both the same sex marriage and gay rights in general may lose their dead horse status if public opinion in the US continues to shift.
For those who think no church will marry same-sex partners you may want to read this Atlantic magazine the quiet gay rights revolution in America's churches Halfway to Canada [Smile]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a difference between single-sex marriage and civil partnerships. Civil partnerships forbid the use of any words or lyrics that refer to a marriage, so the Wedding March cannot be sung, and no reference to any religion are allowed.

There are Vicars who have been doing SSB's in churches using the words/music of the marriage rite for 20+ years. OK it's been private and under the radar but it's more than possible than more than one sympathetic Bishop knows/knew and does/did nothing.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Simple understanding of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not disagree with the verdict. He simply told the accusers that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then said that he did not condemn the woman and that, showing he agreed that she had indeed committed the crime, told her to go and sin no more. I can't make it any straighter than that.

As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.

How you decided that stoning, which Jesus in practice stopped by saying what he said, falls on the ceremonial side of this distinction, I've no idea.
I didn't. I was just making the point that Jesus set the example for not stoning people even though they might be guilty of the offence, as the questioner asked me whether I agreed that naughty children should be stoned.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a difference between single-sex marriage and civil partnerships. Civil partnerships forbid the use of any words or lyrics that refer to a marriage, so the Wedding March cannot be sung, and no reference to any religion are allowed.

There are Vicars who have been doing SSB's in churches using the words/music of the marriage rite for 20+ years. OK it's been private and under the radar but it's more than possible than more than one sympathetic Bishop knows/knew and does/did nothing.
I wouldn't want such a deceitful man as my parish priest. He shows no respect for his church, for his bishop, and most importantly for God himself.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Here's a crazy-making thought:
It is probable that everybody reading this thread is finding that it reinforces their existing belief set / philosophy. Discussing these arrayed points of contention may actually be actively counter-productive to social harmony.

Humans suuuuuuck.

You are aware that you are part of this same set, aren't you?
And yes, I fully concur.
To my deep sadness, I take great comfort from having resigned from church membership.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There are enough differences between civil partnerships and same sex marriage that Susan Calman gave a whole half hour programme on it as part of the linked series. Researched and vetted by the BBC lawyers for accuracy.

John Sentanu is quoted in this Telegraph article from June 13 that the Church of England may allow same sex blessings and it's obviously being debated.

quote:
However, he also signalled the Church could review its attitude towards blessing gay couples in future.

“What do you do with people in same sex relationships that are committed, that are loving, that are Christian?” he said.

“Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree but not them? That is a big question to which we are going to come and the moment is not now. We are dealing with legislation as we've got."

Although the law was recently changed to make it possible for churches to perform civil partnership ceremonies, they are still officially banned in the Church of England whose rules also prevent priests performing formal “blessing” services for same-sex couples.

There have been bigger stories in the press - this one from the Daily Mail from 2008, which was discussed on the Ship when it happened. The fact that hit the press in the way that it did makes me suspect there are fewer same sex blessings happening than Exclamation Mark is suggesting.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There are Vicars who have been doing SSB's in churches using the words/music of the marriage rite for 20+ years. OK it's been private and under the radar but it's more than possible than more than one sympathetic Bishop knows/knew and does/did nothing.
I wouldn't want such a deceitful man as my parish priest. He shows no respect for his church, for his bishop, and most importantly for God himself.
I suspect the vicars think they're doing what God wants: compassionately blessing the union of two people who happen to be of the same sex, and not waiting for human prejudices and religious bureaucracy to catch up.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of Parish Churches in Scotland that will choose to marry gay couples in due course, along with many Scottish Episcopal Churches (and in all likelihood Glasgow Cathedral). Within 3 years is my bet.

Is there going to be a business revival at Gretna Green? [Smile]
I doubt it. The situation at Gretna arose from the discrepancy in civil marriage laws between Scotland and England. Not least that a wedding can be carried out in Scotland by almost anyone. The marriages at Gretna were traditionally civil rather than religious, and it's likely that same-sex couples will be able to marry in England before they can in Scotland (depending on how quickly the bill makes it through the Scottish parliament). I suspect that gay folk will be just as keen as straight to avail themselves of a helpful minister willing to conduct the wedding on the beach or the lochside.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And anyway, one cannot get away from the Biblical definition - a man leaves his father, a woman leaves her mother and they become one flesh.

am I the only one, while reading this thread, to keep picturing the premise of some B horror flick involving a plastic surgeon and grotesque, merged bodies?

just me, then?

carry on.

That is a bad bad movie cherub.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh yes, that's right. You don't actually use sex as part of expressing your deepest, closest relationship with another human being, do you? I mean, sure, you love your wife a hell of a lot, but you don't express that bond through sex. No, that's just DUTY. Baby-making duty.

Personally I think that Romeo and Juliet drama has only one way to go, and if you are attaching too much cosmic significance to your humping then the cosmos will turn out to be rather limited. A bit more down to earth attitude to regular sex with the same person over decades does help, and kindness and humour will be more important qualities in the marriage bed than kamasutric star performance.

As for baby-making duty, well, there certainly is a duty to be open to having a baby, in principle. And that perhaps points to expressing a deepness and closeness in sex that you are not so terribly keen on. One that is as cosmic as poop in nappies, and expresses a commitment that is going to make your hair grey and your bank account empty. Romance gets real pretty damn quick that way, and if you are smiling at your beloved through that, then perhaps it really is about more than a pretty face and sensational hip rhythm.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Either 'one flesh' is about a deep union or it's just a physical penile insertion thing. Make up your mind.

No, orfeo, precisely not. What you write there is the exact antithesis to Jesus Christ Himself, God Incarnate. It is not either the profoundness of heaven or the baseness of earth, it is both-and. It is one and the same, united in the person (in this case, our person) while remaining unmixed and distinct in their respective natures. Penile insertion remains penile insertion, deep union remains deep union, but both are one in us as persons. Whether you agree with this particular case is one thing. But if you don't get this principle, then frankly you have understood nothing about Christianity. And if you do get this principle, then you have to stop arguing as you do above. Either-or is not Christian.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
EDIT: It is freaking BIZARRE to have you tell me I'm making it all about sex when you are the one saying that you can't have a marriage without sex in it. Absolutely bizarre. The debate is about MARRIAGE. I hate to break it to you, but gays aren't protesting that you're denying them their right to have sex. The law on that changed decades ago.

You were making it all about sex, at least rhetorically, because you were pretending that I was excluding love, commitment and intense feelings just because I was discussing the necessary sexual aspect of marriage. But you cannot have marriage without sex, because marriage is designed for having sex. That's what it is about. In case you were not aware, nobody and nothing stops you from living with another person in a sex-free way for as long as you like, and how you like it. You do not need to marry if you want to live together "platonically", in love, commitment and with intense feelings. You need to marry if you want to have sex and children. If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And it is even MORE bizarre to suggest that the goal of gays in having marriage is to have more sex! I mean, what the fuck, dude? The whole point of marriage is committing. It's the exact opposite of screwing whoever I like. If I just wanted to screw whoever I like, why would I give a shit about marriage? Why would a heterosexual give a shit about marriage if their goal was to have lots of sex whenever they felt like it??

Well, for one thing because you cannot have any sex outside of marriage. None. You are not even allowed to masturbate. OK? But of course, you are constantly confusing actual marriage with that token ceremony of modernity. Well then, tell me where is the commitment in that? It is a temporary union till divorce does you part. As institution, it is a sham - it's precisely worth whatever you make of it, no more and no less. No particular penalty is attached to getting out of it, unless you count the money wasted on lawyers. Nobody needs that, actually, because if the measure of one's commitment simply is one's commitment, then one does not need to give that the fancy name of "marriage". And of course, among the heterosexual couples that realisation is getting more and more traction. And now you walk in and absolutely demand that you gays get that token ceremony, too. Because ... well, I don't know why. Keeping up with the shams of the Joneses, I guess. I'm not sure that all this fighting is really about the gays, honestly. I think it is mostly about heterosexuals not wanting to have the nasty fact rubbed into their faces that their "marriage" means so little now that there really is not much of a reason left to refuse it to gays.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, please. As if you've noticed the bite and those who disagree with you on this subject haven't? We disagree about what God's will is, but we all know it's incredibly difficult to conform to God's will.

Call me a cynic, but if you find that God's will coincides precisely with your sexual urges, then my guess is that you were not listening all that well to God. There's plenty about the RC's teaching on sexuality that I find hard to live by. That it is a challenge does not prove that it is the right challenge, but I'm deeply suspicious about the lack of challenge I see elsewhere.

[ 17. August 2013, 08:23: Message edited by: IngoB ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Certainly many would be. Probably a similar proportion to straight people. In fact a fair few already are. The formal recognition of church or state won't change the facts of their relationship.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Certainly many would be. Probably a similar proportion to straight people. In fact a fair few already are. The formal recognition of church or state won't change the facts of their relationship.
Indeed, there are gay couples that have stayed together 40, 50, 60 years. But Ingo is one of those idiots who thinks that the gay lifestyle is all nightclubs and wild sex, which makes us much sense as labelling the 20 year old frat boys vomiting in the gutter as typical of the straight lifestyle and standard marriage material.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Well said Orfeo . That is the kind of rhetoric that changes the attitudes of people like myself .

Heterophobic rants do not .

But yeah , this is Hell so carry on ranting if this is folks' wont .
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem with the supporters of ssm is that they, if the are Christians, have to ignore the Bible and have a very low view of its divine authorship.

How long have we been debating this issue of SoF? Have you really missed every single fucking post by Christians and non-Christians explaining that the issue is not "what I believe God says" but "by what right do we force one particular view of 'what God says' on everybody?"

There's no end of things that God or the Bible can be supposed to be against (greed, lust, pride, worshipping other gods, pornography, drunkenness, disobedience to parents...) that just about no one wants to make laws to oppose. There's no reason why a Christian believing gay sex to be wrong shouldn't add SSM to that very very long list.

You're not a moron. You're capable of reading English and even trying to understand other points of view. So why do you repeat this stupid misrepresentation of the other side's views? Do you expect us not to notice? Do you not even notice yourself that you are, well, the plain word for it is, LYING*?

Or are you just trying to be deliberately offensive?

(*God's against that, too. He's even got a commandment about it.)
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Certainly many would be. Probably a similar proportion to straight people. In fact a fair few already are.

The "no sex other than in marriage, no divorce of marriage, and marriage is ordered to having children" movement in the gay community has indeed escaped my attention so far. That you can wheel out some gay couples that have stayed together for decades is precisely as meaningless as wheeling out some heterosexual couples that have stayed together for decades. All that tells us is that people can fulfil that particular criterion, whether they want to establish this and other criteria in a formal and binding way through a (religious) institution is quite a different matter.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The formal recognition of church or state won't change the facts of their relationship.

Then why seek it?
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
People do change their minds on this topic. Even Presidents. But then it's only the stubborn ones we drag to Hell.

Even an Evangelical Bishop repented. If there's hope for him (who is under more pressure to hold the conservative party line), there's hope for gay/Muslim/left-wing-hating gobshites.

(Edited by host: lost/broken/long link replaced by one using tinyurl)

[ 17. August 2013, 12:52: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
There certainly is. 80% and more of me is that. For I am all I have ever been.

There is hope even for IngoB.

The Bible is not a flat cook book. It has a trajectory.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why will you simply not accept that gay sex is aghainst God's will as far as HE is concerned?

A simple answer to a simple question... For my part it is because I believe to impute such a thing would be a grave sin, a blasphemy against God, a denial of the plain truth of Scripture, a refusal to submit to our Saviour's commandment of Love, and an imperilment to my eternal soul.

But other than that, sure it's grand...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why will you simply not accept that gay sex is aghainst God's will as far as HE is concerned?

A simple answer to a simple question... For my part it is because I believe to impute such a thing would be a grave sin, a blasphemy against God, a denial of the plain truth of Scripture, a refusal to submit to our Saviour's commandment of Love, and an imperilment to my eternal soul.

But other than that, sure it's grand...

Pretty much, yep. Though I do believe that God, in his mercy, will ultimately forgive even homophobes.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
He already has. He includes them with us. The trick is we must include them. Otherwise they become our sinners in the hands of an angry church.

And yeah, you were using hyperbole.

[ 17. August 2013, 11:12: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
And just where does it say "And Jesus said, 'You have heard it said that thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman', but I say unto thee, it's OK now."?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Hoorayyyy! Bravo. Mate, that's your story. Your desperate interpolation. God bless you in it. God is with you in it. Despite it. If He can move you in it, in your sleep, while you suffer, by you reading, suffering, He will. If He can be bothered. He might even do that for IngoB.

But what He wants from me is to embrace you in your difference, in your otherness. And even IngoB who will not have that. But your flaw, unlike IngoB who is sealed, is that you want to be loved.

It's all right mate. So is mine.

Your exegesis on 'one flesh' is risible it has to be said. Utterly vacuous. Not that better can be done, otherwise I'd do it for you. As I used to do for myself.

As Steve Chalke courageously grasped, we have never been here before.

Deal with it.

And no I'm not comfortable with homosexual sex ... or homophobia or Islam or Islamophobia or crime or punishment. Them. Us. But nowadays I'm far more uncomfortable with the reactionary responses. Starting with my own.

The only way forward is together, with and despite our different stories.

Let's find a way here Mudfrog.

For the love of God.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

The only way forward is together, with and despite our different stories.

Let's find a way here Mudfrog.

For the love of God.

Well and amen to that of course - difficult though it might be for all of us!
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Here's an idea, let's call the religious mumbo-jumbo thingy "Really Real God-Approved Marriage™".

Then we can all rest assured that the mere seeking of the lowly social contract with corresponding legal rights and responsibilities can be applied to the general understanding of "marriage" as actually used in modern secular/legal usage. And we can let any human couple do that, and save the RRGAM™ for just the baby-making flesh-melding army of the various offended gods.

"Why bother?"!? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for baby-making duty, well, there certainly is a duty to be open to having a baby, in principle. And that perhaps points to expressing a deepness and closeness in sex that you are not so terribly keen on. One that is as cosmic as poop in nappies, and expresses a commitment that is going to make your hair grey and your bank account empty. Romance gets real pretty damn quick that way, and if you are smiling at your beloved through that, then perhaps it really is about more than a pretty face and sensational hip rhythm.

What a load of crap. Plenty of people who never have children are quite keen on the highest degree of deepness and closeness in sex, and having a baby is not the only strong test of romance.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Oh, please. As if you've noticed the bite and those who disagree with you on this subject haven't? We disagree about what God's will is, but we all know it's incredibly difficult to conform to God's will.

Call me a cynic, but if you find that God's will coincides precisely with your sexual urges, then my guess is that you were not listening all that well to God. There's plenty about the RC's teaching on sexuality that I find hard to live by. That it is a challenge does not prove that it is the right challenge, but I'm deeply suspicious about the lack of challenge I see elsewhere.
Who said anything about God's will coinciding precisely with their sexual urges? Saying the church should marry gay people doesn't at all mean every sexual urge gay people (or straight people, for that matter) feel should be indulged. And it's all very well for straight people to talk about the "challenge" of Catholic teaching on sexuality when at least the RCC allows them a licit avenue for the sex they want to have.

[ 17. August 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Simple understanding of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus did not disagree with the verdict. He simply told the accusers that those without sin should cast the first stone. He then said that he did not condemn the woman and that, showing he agreed that she had indeed committed the crime, told her to go and sin no more. I can't make it any straighter than that.

As far as Jesus talking about the Torah (not 'the rules') he said that he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil the Law. This means that as far as he was concerned, nothing had changed - the moral and criminal law still stood BUT as far as the ceremonial side of the Torah - anything to do with the Temple, ceremony, diet, ritual purity and sacrifice, etc, he was fulfilling it in himself and rendering them obsolete.

How you decided that stoning, which Jesus in practice stopped by saying what he said, falls on the ceremonial side of this distinction, I've no idea.
I didn't. I was just making the point that Jesus set the example for not stoning people even though they might be guilty of the offence, as the questioner asked me whether I agreed that naughty children should be stoned.
This contradicts your statement, included in this nested quote, regarding Jesus not coming to change "law". This is the problem when people slide to and fro between literal and interpretation. Shifting, sliding and changing position in a theological game of Twister, refusing to acknowledge that their arse has hit the ground.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
if you are attaching too much cosmic significance to your humping then the cosmos will turn out to be rather limited
could not have said it better myself. You should paste this on your mirror.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
.... As for baby-making duty, well, there certainly is a duty to be open to having a baby, in principle. And that perhaps points to expressing a deepness and closeness in sex that you are not so terribly keen on. ...

Wow. That's some deep insight into other people's relationships.

Well, no, actually, it's a load of crap. Many happy, loving, committed couples delay having children for many good reasons. Such as finishing their education, getting their careers started, getting stable housing, or hey, just enjoying their couple-ness for a little while before embarking on the next great adventure in life.

But no, those things have no place in the Bingo's Procrustean baby-making marriage bed.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Mudfrog: I see no evidence in the Gospels, the Acts or the Epistles for the relaxation of the moral law.
I don't care, this isn't how I read the Bible.

quote:
Mudfrog: Why will you simply not accept that gay sex is aghainst God's will as far as HE is concerned?
Because —and I hope the gay people on the Ship will forgive me the expression— this god can take one up the ass. As far as I am concerned.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.
I agree with Arethosemyfeet, it's going to happen in Scotland as soon as the legislation is passed. There are church ministers campaigning for it now. (At 1.42, 1.46 and 1.55)

Incidentally, a gay couple we know were jointly ordained as elders in the Church of Scotland over 15 years ago, which we took to be a pretty strong endorsement by their minister and congregation, at a point at which the church didn't have many options for showing support for a gay couple.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
It's only a fair bet if you limit it to England. If you want to cover the whole of the UK then you'll have to shorten the time drastically if you want anyone to bite.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
It's only a fair bet if you limit it to England. If you want to cover the whole of the UK then you'll have to shorten the time drastically if you want anyone to bite.
Fine by me. But the offer was to Mudfrog, not all and sundry. I'm just asking others to be witnesses.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
It will take less than 25 years, even in England. Mudfrog is losing this. His side is on the losing side of this. Just like people in the Church defended separations of blacks and whites decades ago —using the same kind of 'Biblical' reasoning— as Mudfrog does. They lost.

In a couple of decades, at least in the West no-one will bat an eye about a SSM in the church. People who still object will be loud at times, but they will be at the fringes. Even the RCC won't be able to enforce this. People will nod when the Vatican makes its decrees, but in their private sphere they will simply ignore them. Just as most Catholics in the Netherlands, the US and Brazil already use contraceptives.

You're losing this, big time. It is not because the people don't accept moral arguments. It's because they do, and they decide that your argument isn't moral.

And I will laugh, and laugh, and laugh...
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
£20 to the Ship's Floating fund says that it will happen within the next four years in Scotland.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
QLib, I'll wager you any reasonable sum you care to name that there will be no Vatican-sanctioned (i.e., renegade ones don't count) Roman Catholic gay marriage ceremony in any Roman Catholic church (or any other venue) in the next 25 years.

But I agree that Mudfrog would be a mug to bet tuppence than no Church of England parish will celebrate one in the same period.

[ 17. August 2013, 17:16: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
My my . Is the timing of SSMs being conducted in church is turning into a sweep stake ? Surely there's some commission to be had here.

If we're going to lose half the congregation over this might as well make a couple of quid in the process [Devil]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
That depends if you count the Quakers as a church, Britain yearly meeting reached agreement on same sex marriage some years before the law changed.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Unless one can find a true Scotsman, I suggest no one actually wager with Mudfrog.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
lilBuddha: Unless one can find a true Scotsman, I suggest no one actually wager with Mudfrog.
Actually, for Mudfrog to lose this wager, we'd need to find two true Scotsmen (or Scotswomen) [Biased]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And just where does it say "And Jesus said, 'You have heard it said that thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman', but I say unto thee, it's OK now."?

quote:
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
I hold that to include both cocks and strap-ons.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, this is all academic. ...

There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

A tenner says you're wrong, and that we'll see that happen within the next quarter-century. I call on other shipmates to witness. If any of us are still here in 25 years' time ...
That depends if you count the Quakers as a church, Britain yearly meeting reached agreement on same sex marriage some years before the law changed.
Well, yes, I think it would be unfair to count Quakers. [Biased]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The gay community

What on earth is that?

Is there also a 'straight community'?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And just where does it say "And Jesus said, 'You have heard it said that thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman', but I say unto thee, it's OK now."?

Yeah, Jesus failed to mention that prohibition at all. Showing perhaps exactly how important it was to him. Compared to, say, loving one's enemies.

quote:
I see no evidence in the Gospels, the Acts or the Epistles for the relaxation of the moral law.
This is true, because when it's shown to you as plain as day, you don't see it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Here's an idea, let's call the religious mumbo-jumbo thingy "Really Real God-Approved Marriage™".

Then we can all rest assured that the mere seeking of the lowly social contract with corresponding legal rights and responsibilities can be applied to the general understanding of "marriage" as actually used in modern secular/legal usage. And we can let any human couple do that, and save the RRGAM™ for just the baby-making flesh-melding army of the various offended gods.

"Why bother?"!? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

That actually is something people have been suggesting since the beginning of this debate, circa 90000 B.C.E. I actually agree, with great big bells on and party hats to boot. If a church wants to make its marriage pact extra- sacred, let 'em.

But there, you contributed a salient point to the debate. I bet you feel so soiled now.

[ 17. August 2013, 19:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
My my . Is the timing of SSMs being conducted in church is turning into a sweep stake ? Surely there's some commission to be had here.

If we're going to lose half the congregation over this might as well make a couple of quid in the process [Devil]

A dead horse bookie?
There's only so much amusement in watching Mudfrog's homophobic glee that the law doesn't allow gays to get married in the COE turn into gnashing and wailing and denial as a number of churches outside the COE start performing services and the COE starts complaining about being left out. [Big Grin]


How about a trifecta?
Time to first same sex marriage performed by a lesbian bishop of the COE.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Here's an idea, let's call the religious mumbo-jumbo thingy "Really Real God-Approved Marriage™".

Then we can all rest assured that the mere seeking of the lowly social contract with corresponding legal rights and responsibilities can be applied to the general understanding of "marriage" as actually used in modern secular/legal usage. And we can let any human couple do that, and save the RRGAM™ for just the baby-making flesh-melding army of the various offended gods.

"Why bother?"!? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

You need to qualify it by church as in

"Really Real Catholic God-Approved Marriage™".

Otherwise the Jews, Quakers and churches that do SSM marriage will confuse the issue with their same sex God approved marriage. That also lets you put any other church restrictions in such as no divorcees and no people past the age of conception. And don't forget the trademark ;-)
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Did anyone else get a mental picture of King Canute when reading this?
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And just where does it say "And Jesus said, 'You have heard it said that thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman', but I say unto thee, it's OK now."?

quote:
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
I hold that to include both cocks and strap-ons.

[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Should CofE priests still be permitted to act as registrars for the legal bit, if the Church is not willing/able for them to abide by the law on marriage?
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Call me a cynic, but if you find that God's will coincides precisely with your sexual urges, then my guess is that you were not listening all that well to God. There's plenty about the RC's teaching on sexuality that I find hard to live by.

I was raised in a church that told me homosexuality was a sin, so that's what I believed. I always have, and still do, find the idea of having sex with another man physically repulsive. I can't help but feel awkward if I see a couple of gay men being intimate in public (though I don't have the same reaction to lesbians).

But so what? It's for me to get over that. Because my view of God's will is at odds with my solely heterosexual urges. That people who are gay agree with me that gender orientation is unimportant, but fidelity, faithfulness, love, compromise etc in a relationship are what's important isn't because they're just justifying their sexual orientation. They've just been provoked into re-evaluating things earlier than people like me, who didn't have to think about it for a long time.

The thing is, Ingo, and I'm trying to say this without sounding harsh, you don't have opinions of your own. You believe what the Catholic Church currently teaches. That church currently says homosexuality is wrong, so you can produce your classic logical eight-paragraph post explaining why they're right.

But if (when?) the Catholic Church finally changes its stance, and accepts gays and gay marriage, then I'm sure you'd be able to provide an equally long explanation as to why they're now right that it's okay, and how that's what the Catholic Church always taught anyhow (even though they didn't).

You start from your Church-given opinion, and work out your arguments from there. Yet you accuse homosexuals of bias in their opinions based on their sexual urges. There's a strong element of irony in there somewhere, or so ISTM.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You start from your Church-given opinion, and work out your arguments from there. Yet you accuse homosexuals of bias in their opinions based on their sexual urges. There's a strong element of irony in there somewhere, or so ISTM.

"Irony"? You are very kind.

___

Plique-à-Jour, damn you, I went and looked up what your name means, and now there's a whole new world of beautiful things I would like but can't afford.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Mousethief,

Irony is what the sticky up the arsy is made from. This is why it yields so rarely.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Mudfrog does the 1-Paragraph version of the same thing. Every historical interpretation that's been discarded was CLEARLY wrong and had no basis in Scripture. And yet every understanding being held right now by Mudfrog is absolutely correct and what God says. Imagine Mudfrog's good fortune living at the one point in history when the church is at its most perfect!
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Fuck you.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
For purpose of the bet do Unitarian churches such as Brighton Unitarian Church count? Quakers at least tend not to use 'church' in their meeting houses' names so might be considered outside the bet's parameters.

I agree btw the Roman Catholic church is unlikely to be performing marriages for same-sex couples in the next 25 years. CoE might not either (after all it hasn't even managed to allow women bishops yet). Scottish Episcopal Church, I would think likely. If you want strictly Trinitarian churches in England, the Danish church already does same marriages for same-sex couples (since June 2012) and St. Katherines in London is Church of Denmark and so will likely be open to marrying same-sex couples once it is legal in England (admittedly the ceremony will be in Danish). Church of Sweden also does such marriages and has Ulrika Eleonora Church in London; it also does marriages (under English law) and could presumably do same-sex marriages again once it is legal in England. If you want an English service, the United Reform Church or at least some of its members, e.g., Greenwich United Church, seem ready.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ingo--

Meet Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. They were together over *50*years before they got married. And they married each other twice, due to fluxuations in the laws. They stayed together until death did them part.

Wikipedia's "LGBT Adoption" page might be helpful, too. It's mostly stats, but there are links to many resources at the bottom of the page.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

You start from your Church-given opinion, and work out your arguments from there. Yet you accuse homosexuals of bias in their opinions based on their sexual urges. There's a strong element of irony in there somewhere, or so ISTM.

It's not irony IMO. It's blinkers. IngoB deliberately blinkers himself to all but Catholic teaching. He puts his brilliance and high verbal intelligence into justifying these views.

So he sounds very plausible until I think 'Hang on, what's he actually saying here?'. Then I see lack of real independent thought. Of course, there is also good sense mixed in there, just as there is in plenty of RCC teaching. (Which just clouds things even further imo)

As to his reasons for putting his considerable intellectual and academic ability to this 'cause, I'm not sure. But I suspect that it is because it's easier and safer than having his own ideas and opinions.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

As to his reasons for putting his considerable intellectual and academic ability to this 'cause, I'm not sure. But I suspect that it is because it's easier and safer than having his own ideas and opinions.

But fair dos, isn't that what religion is for? You have assertions about invisible things which cannot be proven, from which you extrapolate over time a complex (but intellectually satisfying) world view.

Surely it's the Church's job to deliver you from your own ideas and opinions, and replace them with solid, 100% Truth?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
He can't not Boogie. He symbolizes the hostility of Christendom. Which, forgivably upon forgivably, are us, all (here, this thread), have been us all, historically and individually - me certainly (all, certainly, now, here).

Forgivably because that's God's job on, in and through us and because it's in the cultures of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic narrative, in the language and it's so easy, inevitable that we take the wrong trajectory, which is the only trajectory, to get to this point of crisis (through all the other 'lesser' ones).

Things work by being broken, by failing.

We have always used our insurance manual theologies before the horse to cover issues we've never actually encountered before. Christendom is getting to its target despite itself, getting to the point by missing it.

So IngoB is one of us. And Mudfrog. There isn't a thickness of paper between us. Because in our reaction to them, we are them.

This is not the way of Christ.

[ 18. August 2013, 07:48: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

As to his reasons for putting his considerable intellectual and academic ability to this 'cause, I'm not sure. But I suspect that it is because it's easier and safer than having his own ideas and opinions.

But fair dos, isn't that what religion is for? You have assertions about invisible things which cannot be proven, from which you extrapolate over time a complex (but intellectually satisfying) world view.

Surely it's the Church's job to deliver you from your own ideas and opinions, and replace them with solid, 100% Truth?

Good point!!

[Smile]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
IngoB said, more or less:
quote:
If [people] really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and [if unable to reproduce naturally] look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of [people] are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Fixed that for you.

Most of us straights fall short of the Catholic ideal. Yet the Catholic Church says we are still married.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Fuck you.
I can understand the sentiment but I'm not convinced that this type of response will do much to advance your argument.
 
Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
People who oppose equal marriage can no longer realistically pride themselves that they are not anti-gay and how dare anyone call them homophobic, because they've been nice to some openly gay people.

If someone substituted 'reasonably' for 'realistically' would you agree with the sentence?

Not that pride is a good thing. [Biased]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
People who oppose equal marriage can no longer realistically pride themselves that they are not anti-gay and how dare anyone call them homophobic, because they've been nice to some openly gay people.

If someone substituted 'reasonably' for 'realistically' would you agree with the sentence?

Not that pride is a good thing. [Biased]

So presumably Gay pride should change its name?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Serious question?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Fuck you.
I can understand the sentiment but I'm not convinced that this type of response will do much to advance your argument.
Advance an argument? Against IngoB? What you been smokin', boy?
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
If 'fuck you' is considered some sort of abbreviation for 'firstly there are same-sex couples exactly like that, secondly there are plenty of opposite-sex couples who aren't, and thirdly its none of your bloody business' then it might be helpful.

If not, it's less helpful albeit probably more heartfelt.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I can understand the sentiment but I'm not convinced that this type of response will do much to advance your argument.

The argument's over. We won. You will look in vain in Dead Horses for one single post containing a cogent and convincing reason for denying gay people the right to marry in a legal system that does not purport to enforce a specifically religious ethical code. There may, I suppose (all things are possible) be such a reason somewhere out there, but no one has yet referred to it in any public discourse I am aware of.

This isn't about whether gays should be allowed equal marriage under the law. The answer to that is now obvious. The only point of contention left is whether people like Mudfrog, who openly advocate a law directed against gay people which they would deeply resent as injurious if it were directed at themselves, can with any credibility at all deny that they are homophobes.

And, unfortunately, some of them still think that they can. So we actually need more contempt, more scorn, more "fuck yous" to bring it home to these people just how odious their views are.

Everyone on the Ship can find the civilised reasons set out again and again and again in Dead Horses. It's been a major topic of debate here for about three years. It's now obvious that we should treat gay people equally, just as it's now obvious that sexism and racism are wrong. Those who don't see that, and yet fail to offer any sensible basis for their support for discrimination, are, on this issue, beyond the reach of logic. That being the case, we don't need to engage with their repulsive points of view as if these were respectable differences of opinion (though, out of courtesy, we often do). "Fuck you" is now an entirely appropriate response.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
So that's what Jesus says?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So that's what Jesus says?

Maybe He wouldn't, but He could do so on this, the Hell board.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Jesus does say some stuff about whitewashed tombs all pretty on the inside and full of rotting corpses on the inside. This was, if I recall, about sanctimonious, self-satisfied religious people who wanted to force their constrictive scruples on others. He had other stuff about vipers and "hypocrites" and stuff. I don't think they said "fuck you" back then -- cursing based on bodily functions is sooooo post-medieval -- but they had other ways of making strong emotions felt.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Yeah I can deconstruct to that and completely understand why The Silent Acolyte said it to the multiply appalling IngoB.

I silently applauded in fact. IngoB getting what he gives in eff words.

But IngoB - far, far more than Mudfrog - is to be as nearly as pitied as Lucifer. Mudfrog is just in purgatory, but IngoB is in innermost, bitterly frozen hell.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But IngoB - far, far more than Mudfrog - is to be as nearly as pitied as Lucifer. Mudfrog is just in purgatory, but IngoB is in innermost, bitterly frozen hell.

As are we all, my friend, but for the grace of God, and He is no respecter of persons.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Indeed mousethief, but he thinks he's in paradise. That must be true for me too then?
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
I think the specific comment made by Ingo was worth a "fuck you." I read it and thought it at the time. It was such a non-pastoral response, and theology without grace is, as Martin says so well, a frozen kind of place to be.

However, I would rather be gracious than rude in terms of the general debate. I've found it useful, when faced with a mob of screaming anti-gay Presbyterians, to think, "at least I have manners, and wouldn't call you the names you're calling me." I don't think I need to descend to that level, although I have been sorely tempted when being told how immoral I am by someone on to his third divorce/remarriage.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This is Hellish and also about cryto-homophobes

Franklin Graham (here discussing gay marriage on Youtube) is speaking at the London 2013 Festival this autumn. It would be truly awesome if we could follow the Icelanders
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
IngoB, you really are a monstrously ignorant and uncharitable person sometimes.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Call me a cynic, but if you find that God's will coincides precisely with your sexual urges, then my guess is that you were not listening all that well to God. There's plenty about the RC's teaching on sexuality that I find hard to live by. That it is a challenge does not prove that it is the right challenge, but I'm deeply suspicious about the lack of challenge I see elsewhere.
Bullshit. God smiles on what you do with your wife, and if you decide to wank or ogle the neighbor's wife you can just feel bad about it until you can go to confession. The Christian life doesn't, so far as you have indicated, pose any particular challenge to you whatsoever.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
(Edited by host: lost/broken/long link replaced by one using tinyurl)
There was nothing wrong with this url
quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9934686/Senior-Church-of-England-bishop-calls-for-gay-union-blessing-services.html
that required that insecure url-shortening service. See here.

Why is it insecure? Because one has to jump through hoops to find out the kind of site one is being linked to.

I trust hosts. I really do. But, gratuitous use of a url shortener nibbles away at that trust.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
If 'fuck you' is considered some sort of abbreviation for 'firstly there are same-sex couples exactly like that, secondly there are plenty of opposite-sex couples who aren't, and thirdly its none of your bloody business' then it might be helpful.

I suppose that's a reasonable way of interpreting my meaning.

Eliab's reading could also be apt.

Unfortunately, I was accusing IngoB of being a much slimier pond scum that than with my Fuck you, not even meriting an exclamation point.

I'll be back later with my reasons why.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Did anyone else get a mental picture of King Canute when reading this?
The refrain that came to mind on reading this was:

"What! Never?"

"Well hardly ever..."

[Biased]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But IngoB - far, far more than Mudfrog - is to be as nearly as pitied as Lucifer. Mudfrog is just in purgatory, but IngoB is in innermost, bitterly frozen hell.

As I understand it, IngoB's track record is that his flavor of true belief can't stand the wear and tear for more than a decade or two. So he'll probably snap out of it and be passionately defending some new true belief. Hard to predict which but I suspect Orthodozy or the elaborate and ridiculous logical edifice involved in keeping Kosher.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I trust hosts. I really do. But, gratuitous use of a url shortener nibbles away at that trust.

Suggest that if you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of links, Styx would be a good place to do it.

[ 19. August 2013, 03:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There will never, ever, be a gay marriage in a parish church, a catholic church, or any other church for that matter in the UK.

Did anyone else get a mental picture of King Canute when reading this?
The refrain that came to mind on reading this was:

"What! Never?"
"Well hardly ever..." [Biased]


"There is no cannibalism
in the British Navy, absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean, there is a certain amount.."
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I can understand the sentiment but I'm not convinced that this type of response will do much to advance your argument.

The argument's over. We won.
I see. So, civility is only necessary until one's opponents have been soundly defeated. That way of thinking has potential dangers, don't you think?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
(Edited by host: lost/broken/long link replaced by one using tinyurl)
There was nothing wrong with this url
quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9934686/Senior-Church-of-England-bishop-calls-for-gay-union-blessing-services.html
that required that insecure url-shortening service. See here.

I trust hosts. I really do. But, gratuitous use of a url shortener nibbles away at that trust.

There was nothing gratuitous about my use of tinyurl. I replaced the link Rosa Winkel supplied because it didn't work on my home PC. I know not why, but that's why I replaced it.

Otherwise, my thanks to orfeo, and matters are as he stated - The Styx is the place for any queries about hosting.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Plenty of people who never have children are quite keen on the highest degree of deepness and closeness in sex, and having a baby is not the only strong test of romance.

That you are keen on something does not mean that you will get it. Indeed, that's pretty much the basis of this entire discussion. And the point here was that "baby-making" replaces cosmic day-dreaming by earthly realities quickly. If you want to find "romance" in it, then you have to build it up not from the smell of roses but that of nappies. No doubt other "opportunities" exist for that. I imagine being very poor, or living in a war zone, will require similar re-arrangements of romance, but having a baby is nicer. Romance built on that is more coalface than cosmic, more kind than kamasutric, but it is tough as nails. Whereas I'm suspicious about all this romantic "deepness and closeness" talk. Frankly, after a decade or two of living together the question is not whether you will get deep and close enough, the question is whether you'd still want to.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Saying the church should marry gay people doesn't at all mean every sexual urge gay people (or straight people, for that matter) feel should be indulged.

Agreed. I did not actually want to stray too much into the territory whether homosex itself is allowed.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And it's all very well for straight people to talk about the "challenge" of Catholic teaching on sexuality when at least the RCC allows them a licit avenue for the sex they want to have.

Well, it allows them a licit avenue for sex. Whether it is for the sex they want to have is a different question.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Many happy, loving, committed couples delay having children for many good reasons. Such as finishing their education, getting their careers started, getting stable housing, or hey, just enjoying their couple-ness for a little while before embarking on the next great adventure in life.

First, nobody forces people to get married. Second, nobody forces people to have sex when married. If a married couple agrees that they should delay having children for good reasons, then that's perfectly licit and easily achieved by abstinence. (Even these days by smart abstinence that only concerns a week or two per period - but I'm not going to do another NFP discussion here as well.)

What you really want is a clean separation into three parts. There is sex, which is perfectly fine whenever and however, as long as it is consensual. Then there is marriage, which is perfectly fine whenever and with whomever, as long as it is loving. Finally, there is begetting children, which is perfectly fine whenever, however and with whomever, as long as they are wanted and cared for. Opt in and out of any of these as you wish. Well, the traditional view makes all these one indivisible whole. Breaking them apart simply is sin.

So you can pretend that I'm living among the Amish all you want. It is just not the case that I'm a stranger to the concerns of modern life. That's not the difference. The difference is that in my opinion these concerns cannot overrule that splitting the whole of marriage into pieces is sin. So one has to adapt one's modern life as good as one can, because one simply cannot change what the Lord has declared to be the proper framework for sex.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In a couple of decades, at least in the West no-one will bat an eye about a SSM in the church. People who still object will be loud at times, but they will be at the fringes. Even the RCC won't be able to enforce this. People will nod when the Vatican makes its decrees, but in their private sphere they will simply ignore them. Just as most Catholics in the Netherlands, the US and Brazil already use contraceptives.

Unlike with the use of contraceptives, the couple requires the direct cooperation of the Church for a marriage - at least if they wish to have a marriage in Church. So no, the Vatican will be able to enforce this as long as it wishes to. And as long as its clergy is prepared to suffer secular punishment, there is nothing any other power can do about it. People can turn away from the Church, of course - but then maybe it is high time to stop worrying about quantity, and start worrying about quality.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That actually is something people have been suggesting since the beginning of this debate, circa 90000 B.C.E. I actually agree, with great big bells on and party hats to boot. If a church wants to make its marriage pact extra- sacred, let 'em.

Indeed. As far as I'm concerned all this is about language anyhow, since the realities of the matter are utterly unchangeable. Problem is, how does one verb "Holy Matrimony"?

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The thing is, Ingo, and I'm trying to say this without sounding harsh, you don't have opinions of your own. You believe what the Catholic Church currently teaches. That church currently says homosexuality is wrong, so you can produce your classic logical eight-paragraph post explaining why they're right.

But if (when?) the Catholic Church finally changes its stance, and accepts gays and gay marriage, then I'm sure you'd be able to provide an equally long explanation as to why they're now right that it's okay, and how that's what the Catholic Church always taught anyhow (even though they didn't).

It's a strange thing that people consider as valid personal opinion only what is defined over and against some thought system. I've come to the - very personal - opinion that the RCC quite literally is the Divine institution designated by God to spread His Word, from the scriptures that she created to her decrees of today. There are, of course, considerable human limitations to the RCC, but ultimately I do not think of the Church as a human matter. She is where God speaks, and if God speaks I listen.

Now, part of attributing such exalted status to the Church is that she must be consistent. The Church cannot ultimately, beyond human limitations, contradict herself, because God does not contradict Himself. I've spent considerable time looking at the RCC's doctrines throughout history, and I have come to the conclusions that she hasn't contradicted herself. Again, this is my personal opinion.

Now, if the RCC changed her teaching on homosexuality and gay marriage, then I would instantly leave her. I would not have a second of hesitation, I would be out in a flash (and yes, I know from experience that I can do this). And the point would not be that I'm so super-convinced of the evils of homosexuality and gay marriage that I could not possibly stand being in an organisation that supports it. Not at all. The point would be that I'm convinced (personal opinion) that the RCC has clear doctrine on this matter, and cannot accommodate such change without in fact blatantly contradicting herself. But if she can contradict herself so blatantly, then she is not Divine. And I have zero time for non-Divine institutions of religion. I have always gone my own way in matters of religion, and I do not need much spiritual company. (That's a statement about myself, I'm that way. It's not saying this is how people need to be.) The reason I'm with any one institution is because I believe they have the Truth with capital 'T'. If I don't believe so any longer, then it's bye bye and good riddance.

So frankly, I think I'm pretty hardcore "personally opinionated". And I think my past history in religion shows that I do not only talk that talk, but also walk that walk. It's just not the sort of opinionated that most people consider to be "proper". It's not defined by where I dare to deviate from orthodoxy.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Meet Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. They were together over *50*years before they got married. And they married each other twice, due to fluxuations in the laws. They stayed together until death did them part.

Why would these ladies be of any interest to what I've said? I've not denied anywhere that some gay relationships can last for decades and unto death.

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
But fair dos, isn't that what religion is for? You have assertions about invisible things which cannot be proven, from which you extrapolate over time a complex (but intellectually satisfying) world view. Surely it's the Church's job to deliver you from your own ideas and opinions, and replace them with solid, 100% Truth?

Close enough. It is slightly more complicated than just "cannot be proven", given that one can experience the Divine to some degree, and given that there is circumstantial evidence (like Christ's claimed resurrection) to be considered. It's not "proving", but trying to create the most coherent story out of insufficient data. However, there is in my opinion next to no value in one's own ideas and opinions in religion, or indeed in any attempt to find truth, just because they belong to oneself. You can have your own opinion on gravity, so what? Your opinion does not count unless it can be shown to work better against the data. In religion, the data situation is very difficult, but that does not change the principle. Individual opinion is irrelevant other than by virtue of being right, truth is not decided by preference or vote but by reality.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The argument's over. We won.

I agree. But you didn't win by argument, rather by swaying popular sentiment. Really, there never was any argument to be had here. Start from different principles, obtain different results - big surprise. Now what though? How much heresy on this matter will be allowed?

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So we actually need more contempt, more scorn, more "fuck yous" to bring it home to these people just how odious their views are.

That's not really what's going to happen. Under such pressures, what happens is radicalisation. Those who cannot take the pressure drift away, whereas the ones who can take it become hardened in their views.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's now obvious that we should treat gay people equally, just as it's now obvious that sexism and racism are wrong. Those who don't see that, and yet fail to offer any sensible basis for their support for discrimination, are, on this issue, beyond the reach of logic. That being the case, we don't need to engage with their repulsive points of view as if these were respectable differences of opinion (though, out of courtesy, we often do). "Fuck you" is now an entirely appropriate response.

Your weasel word there is "sensible basis", as unsurprisingly you will declare the basis of your opponent's arguments to be insensible. Anyway, it seems to me that you are done talking, but not done fighting. That's a dangerous place to be in, for yourself and for others, and it's not a very Christian place. Not that one cannot fight if one is Christian, even physically. But only with deep regret and with open lines of communication.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But IngoB - far, far more than Mudfrog - is to be as nearly as pitied as Lucifer. Mudfrog is just in purgatory, but IngoB is in innermost, bitterly frozen hell.

You are sort of running out of superlatives of evil there, so I'm really curious what will be next? The world only applauds novelty, and you will go cold turkey on its approval soon enough...

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
IngoB, you really are a monstrously ignorant and uncharitable person sometimes.

We all have to live with our limitations...

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
God smiles on what you do with your wife, and if you decide to wank or ogle the neighbor's wife you can just feel bad about it until you can go to confession. The Christian life doesn't, so far as you have indicated, pose any particular challenge to you whatsoever.

As far as I can abuse the sacramental system that way, so can any gay person for their sexual sins. That's really not where it's at. And I have no intention to reveal my struggles with the Christian life online in a public forum in any significantly personal fashion, doubly so where that would involve people other than me. I have no idea why some people believe that this is the place to spill their guts, but I sure do not share that belief. Suffice to say that sexual sins are certainly the most obvious and repetitive sins in my life.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As I understand it, IngoB's track record is that his flavor of true belief can't stand the wear and tear for more than a decade or two.

FWIW, my track record in religion is still less than two decades total, and by now I've lasted about three times as long as RC than as Soto Zennie.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: Unlike with the use of contraceptives, the couple requires the direct cooperation of the Church for a marriage - at least if they wish to have a marriage in Church. So no, the Vatican will be able to enforce this as long as it wishes to.
I don't have direct experience with this, but I understand that 'renegade' SSMs are already happening on some scale in Catholic churches in the Netherlands. I have no doubt that Brazil will follow. This is the vision I see for the future of the RCC: the Vatican will remain firm in its rules, but Catholics will shrug their shoulders and care less and less about them.

And oh my, what a grand vision it is.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by IngoB:
[qb]We all have to live with our limitations...[qb]

Not all of us seek out places that can give free rein to our limitations where we can express and brag about them without consequences. The really horrible part is that you say occasionally that your faith fails at the waist, when there is a much more glaring problem in your heart.

At least so far as you indicate here.

quote:
As far as I can abuse the sacramental system that way, so can any gay person for their sexual sins. That's really not where it's at. And I have no intention to reveal my struggles with the Christian life online in a public forum in any significantly personal fashion, doubly so where that would involve people other than me. I have no idea why some people believe that this is the place to spill their guts, but I sure do not share that belief. Suffice to say that sexual sins are certainly the most obvious and repetitive sins in my life.
You feel perfectly free to give your judgments against other people's inner struggles, so it makes you look like quite a pompous turd when you act like you are above it when we look at your inner struggles.

And you still don't quite get your implicit complacency here. You can rest assured that you and your sexuality are simply not perfect- that is why we have confession after all. A gay person must carry the burden that they are fundamentally and irrevocably wrong, and on top of it bear the judgments of people like you. They can confess their sins, but they can never be not gay.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't have direct experience with this, but I understand that 'renegade' SSMs are already happening on some scale in Catholic churches in the Netherlands. I have no doubt that Brazil will follow. This is the vision I see for the future of the RCC: the Vatican will remain firm in its rules, but Catholics will shrug their shoulders and care less and less about them. And oh my, what a grand vision it is.

You do realize that there already was the Great Schism and the Reformation, right? We already know what happens if churches that belong to the RCC go renegade, even at very large scales. To claim that history will be repeating itself does not seem like such a grand vision to me: neither is it remarkably foresighted, nor can we expect anything greater to come of it than Orthodoxy and Protestantism. And these come with their own sets of problems, as I'm sure you will agree...

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not all of us seek out places that can give free rein to our limitations where we can express and brag about them without consequences.

I agree. Most people instead do so all over the place, with predictably horrible consequences. Are you seriously trying to make me feel guilty about offending people in SoF's Hell?

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The really horrible part is that you say occasionally that your faith fails at the waist, when there is a much more glaring problem in your heart.

I'm rather aware of most of my failings, as it happens. But I do not care about your analysis, opinion or advice regarding them. And I'm not saying this to offend you or because I'm defensive about them or whatever. I just quite literally do not care what you may think about my failings. There are a few people here whom I can imagine confiding in and taking spiritual/moral advice from. But that would have to be in a quite different setting. And anyway, you are not one of these people. And again, that's not intended as a personal insult. You are just not a person I would seek out for that.

The simple truth is that I consider my personal failings to be besides the point. And I'm very good at sticking to the point. Indeed, I'm so good at it, it might just be one of my many failings...

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You feel perfectly free to give your judgments against other people's inner struggles, so it makes you look like quite a pompous turd when you act like you are above it when we look at your inner struggles.

Can you point out to me where I have given judgement against other people's inner struggles? On this thread, or perhaps elsewhere in the recent past? I rarely do that, and I tend to end up apologising when I do.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
And you still don't quite get your implicit complacency here. You can rest assured that you and your sexuality are simply not perfect- that is why we have confession after all. A gay person must carry the burden that they are fundamentally and irrevocably wrong, and on top of it bear the judgments of people like you. They can confess their sins, but they can never be not gay.

I'm failing to see how I can be "complacent" about something that I cannot change. It is probably true that I have a better starting position than most gay people as far as sexual sin is concerned. That does not mean that things will end better for me than for most of them. And I think gays can be expected to take some judging from my side on a SoF Hell thread titled "Fucking crypto-homophbes". Judging is hardly a one-sided affair here. In the real world, frankly my opinion on these matters is not in particular demand. And I'm the first to agree that this is a good thing. In spiritual and moral matters I have enough to do with sorting out myself.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: You do realize that there already was the Great Schism and the Reformation, right?
I'm not sure if this will lead to another schism. It's quite possible that these people (including clergy) will stay inside the RCC and not give a fuck about what the Vatican says.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Can you point out to me where I have given judgement against other people's inner struggles? On this thread, or perhaps elsewhere in the recent past? I rarely do that, and I tend to end up apologising when I do.
Right here on this thread you voiced your judgment that homosexuals couldn't possibly want the good, Christian marriage that you enjoy, and I recall in recent memory you passing the judgment that I was "Invincibly wrong" because of my "rotten, Protestant DNA" or some stupid crap like that.

You don't end up apologizing with any particular frequency. You usually take this objective indifference line. You care enough to play that line of crap again and again.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I agree. Most people instead do so all over the place, with predictably horrible consequences. Are you seriously trying to make me feel guilty about offending people in SoF's Hell?
Forgot this tidbit: "I am totally objective, I don't care about your opinions, and besides my behavior on the ship doesn't count anyway." [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Are you seriously trying to make me feel guilty about offending people in SoF's Hell?

I can't speak for Zach82 (God knows), but I'd be happy if you just stopped lying about it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It can suck being a Hellhost. I lost interest in Ingo's latest epics when he started talking about abstinence WITHIN marriage, but was obliged to at least scan the remainder. There was a lot of remainder.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's quite possible that these people (including clergy) will stay inside the RCC and not give a fuck about what the Vatican says.

If the Vatican didn't care about clergy disobeying either, then perhaps this could go on for a while. Otherwise the schism wouldn't be sought by the churches, but rather imposed by the Vatican...

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Right here on this thread you voiced your judgment that homosexuals couldn't possibly want the good, Christian marriage that you enjoy, and I recall in recent memory you passing the judgment that I was "Invincibly wrong" because of my "rotten, Protestant DNA" or some stupid crap like that.

I didn't say the former, actually. Not that I generally expect a close reading in Hell, but it would help on occasion. I said that I do not expect that many gays would even want what a close analogy to a classical Catholic marriage would be like. So far nobody actually has tried to argue that I'm wrong, unless "fuck you" counts as a compelling argument. But even if I am wrong, this certainly was not a case of some gay person saying "I really want something like a classical Catholic marriage" and me saying "no, you don't" or "that just shows the depth of your sins" or whatever.

Let's be clear here, I have no intention to apologise simply for offending people by general claims I make about things, even if they struggle internally with those claims. I think SoF is for discussing general claims, and Hell is for when that sort of thing gets nasty. Dispute my claims if you consider them false, or step away if you cannot bear the discussion. I will apologise when I've stopped making general claims and instead started to focus on and attack just the person, in particular if that did not happen in Hell and if it was mixed up with a "general" argument. (Trading insults in Hell is not something I'm proud of, but if it happens I will not beat myself up over that either.)

Now, it is unfortunate that you only recall that I said "some crap like that" to you. Because frankly, I don't trust your recollection one bit. I also do not know whether this happened in Purgatory or Hell. But if you feel that I was singling you out unfairly, I apologise. Rest assured that I consider "Protestant DNA" to be quite generally rotten, leading to all manner of being "invincibly wrong". You are certainly in company there that you would consider good.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Are you seriously trying to make me feel guilty about offending people in SoF's Hell?

I can't speak for Zach82 (God knows), but I'd be happy if you just stopped lying about it.
I've been lying about offending people? Not that I'm aware of, where please?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I didn't say the former, actually. Not that I generally expect a close reading in Hell, but it would help on occasion. I said that I do not expect that many gays would even want what a close analogy to a classical Catholic marriage would be like. So far nobody actually has tried to argue that I'm wrong, unless "fuck you" counts as a compelling argument. But even if I am wrong, this certainly was not a case of some gay person saying "I really want something like a classical Catholic marriage" and me saying "no, you don't" or "that just shows the depth of your sins" or whatever.
I know lots of gay people who want something like Christian marriage. The fact that they want marriage is such obvious evidence to that end, that I can't really conceive of you missing that without very deep ignorance or malice.

Secondly, the problem with making general claims is that they apply to particular people, if only by association. You are either making claims about something inherent to being homosexual, or making no interesting claim whatsoever, since "Many heterosexuals" don't want Christian marriage either, and I don't suppose you want to limit the right of straight people to marry. If someone claims that "Many Catholic priests molest little boys," then you would have every right to be offended, and I would join you.

Though you can't seem to decide if you've actually said anything offensive, or that you don't care if you've been offensive because the offended people don't care. Make up your mind.

quote:
Now, it is unfortunate that you only recall that I said "some crap like that" to you. Because frankly, I don't trust your recollection one bit.
Yeah, writing people off as stupid, irrational or unimportant is a very convenient way of escaping critical engagement and protecting your illusions as "the rational one."

[ 19. August 2013, 17:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Can you point out to me where I have given judgement against other people's inner struggles? On this thread, or perhaps elsewhere in the recent past? I rarely do that, and I tend to end up apologising when I do.
Right here on this thread you voiced your judgment that homosexuals couldn't possibly want the good, Christian marriage that you enjoy, and I recall in recent memory you passing the judgment that I was "Invincibly wrong" because of my "rotten, Protestant DNA" or some stupid crap like that.

You don't end up apologizing with any particular frequency. You usually take this objective indifference line. You care enough to play that line of crap again and again.


 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know lots of gay people who want something like Christian marriage. The fact that they want marriage is such obvious evidence to that end, that I can't really conceive of you missing that without very deep ignorance or malice.

Except I did not discuss "something like Christian marriage". I discussed "something like classical Catholic marriage". Since you apparently can't be bothered reading what I wrote, let me repeat it for your convenience: no sex before or apart from marriage, no possibility of divorce, and likely having several children. Back then I was actually more hammering heterosexual marriage: "If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, ... I'm not sure that all this fighting is really about the gays, honestly. I think it is mostly about heterosexuals not wanting to have the nasty fact rubbed into their faces that their "marriage" means so little now that there really is not much of a reason left to refuse it to gays." If somebody had taken me to task about being so down on civil marriage, I would have understood. But no, let's just skim read and explode into rage about me supposedly claiming that no gays want to marry...

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Secondly, the problem with making general claims is that they apply to particular people. If someone claims that "Many Catholic priests molest little boys," then you would have every right to be offended, and I would join you.

No, I would not have "every right to be offended". I would have every right to point out that there is a difference between "many" in an absolute sense, and many in a relative sense (namely relative to the total number of priests), and that if at all the claim holds water only in the former sense. If a person used that claim to disrupt some ongoing discussion about something else, then I would have a right to be offended by the cheapness of the rhetoric. And if some person kept repeating that statement at every possible opportunity, I would have right to be offended by their spamming and wasting my time. But I have no right to be offended by the fact as such, and as for the other offences, I basically just get to suck it. This is not kindergarden, and the intersection of the comfort zones of all Shipmates is empty.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Though you can't seem to decide if you've actually said anything offensive, or that you don't care if you've been offensive because the offended people don't care. Make up your mind.

WTF? Of course I say offensive things, at least in the sense that I say things now and then, even regularly, which I know will offend certain people. In Hell, shock and horror, I even say things in order to offend certain people. I like to stick with saying things that I think are true, but not necessarily because I'm such a goody two-shoes. Often truth hits home much harder than any insult, and it allows a much better follow-on defence or retreat.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeah, writing people off as stupid, irrational or unimportant is a very convenient way of escaping critical engagement and protecting your illusions as "the rational one."

I do like my illusions, they are lovely. Hence I really appreciate your efforts at being stupid, irrational and unimportant. They do help, please carry on.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Except I did not discuss "something like Christian marriage". I discussed "something like classical Catholic marriage".
I am reading you very closely, I just don't see the difference. What I mean by "Christian marriage" looks awfully identical to "Classical Catholic marriage." Though I don't suppose you will grasp that your inability to see when people agree with you is just another symptom of the same sickness.

quote:
I do like my illusions, they are lovely. Hence I really appreciate your efforts at being stupid, irrational and unimportant. They do help, please carry on.
Wait, you were the one that said this isn't kindergarten?

[ 19. August 2013, 18:22: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Are you seriously trying to make me feel guilty about offending people in SoF's Hell?

I can't speak for Zach82 (God knows), but I'd be happy if you just stopped lying about it.
There was a point where I would have explained IngoB's behavior away as dogged, or evidencing frustration in communicating his thoughts, but I have actually come to the conclusion that he just likes to hurt and shame people. He gets off on it. He'll take whatever heartfelt, carefully thought out post you write, twist it into its most mockable version, and adds a bunch of stuff that will poke you in your soft spots. The only use he has for this group of people is for gloating over. His "Declarations of Truth" aren't meant for the greater good of anyone. He doesn't give a shit about any of us.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
He doesn't give a shit about any of us.
He's said that quite plainly, to the point that it can only be classified as bragging. He also seems to work under the assumption that God doesn't count what he does on the ship.

Oh well, he can not care all he likes, I will continue pointing it out.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
"I was sick,and you didn't comfort me, I was in jail, and you didn't visit me--"

"But it was Hell! it was OK!"
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I appreciate that IngoB desires a place to simply discuss the Christian faith plainly with objectivity and coherence, without having to tiptoe around people's feelings (or whatever). It's just that A) he lapses out of this objectivity and rationality far more often than he will admit, and B) such a place doesn't and can't exist because humans are humans.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Fair enough, and Hell Is Hell for a reason, but at the end of the day one is choosing to sit down and type a bunch of stuff, and while being nice is unproductive, I'd think at least being fair in what one says would be a priority. A personal one, mind you, for someone who claims the level of righteousness he does. Not talking policy.

And you are so right about the subjectivity thing. It's like he thinks throwing around lurid descriptions of what he thinks people's lives are like doesn't count as long as he doesn't actually use the phrase "I think."

[ 19. August 2013, 18:56: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I appreciate that IngoB desires a place to simply discuss the Christian faith plainly with objectivity and coherence,

Or, his reading of the Catholic Church's dogmas and doctrines. Which I suppose for him is the same thing.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.
IngoB also wrote

quote:
Agreed. I did not actually want to stray too much into the territory whether homosex itself is allowed.
Well your opinion on that, which is that gay sex and gay marriages are sins and wrong, precludes you from the discussion on how gay people should construct their marriages.

"Don't have sex before marriage and don't have sex after your marriage either or you'll burn in hell."

The ship has sailed without you and your pointy hat friends and you can stay on the dock saying "but it's wrong" as long as you want. Why would anyone want to listen to your ideas on the right way to have a same sex marriage that you think is a sin? You just can't resist pronouncing on things even though you have no useful contribution.

Let's see, it has to be a single partner because even though the marriage is a sham IngoB wants to vex you with a no divorce rule so he can sneer at you the same way he sneers at Catholics who remarry without paying the Vatican bureaucrats to create a fake annulment.


Oh and thanks for calling everyone who has a civil marriage a participant in a sham marriage. What a twat you are. I pity anyone married to you who has to put up with the idea that its purpose is to breed more Catholics.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
But IngoB doesn't have to think. He's got the Roman Catholic Church to do that for him, and as they are never ever wrong, and never ever change their minds about anything, he can get on with his gleeful intellectual shit-flinging without having to do more than rationalise what he's typing.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I appreciate that IngoB desires a place to simply discuss the Christian faith plainly with objectivity and coherence,

Or, his reading of the Catholic Church's dogmas and doctrines. Which I suppose for him is the same thing.
When I look at his posts I just think to myself: That's IngoB alright. That's the way he thinks. It's nothing to do with me.

And then I giggle at how Francis is now his Pope. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

And then I giggle at how Francis is now his Pope. [Snigger]

<highfive>
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I pity anyone married to you who has to put up with the idea that its purpose is to breed more Catholics.

Jeez, we all wind up saying that, don't we?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I pity anyone married to you who has to put up with the idea that its purpose is to breed more Catholics.

Jeez, we all wind up saying that, don't we?
Not just more Catholics, more IngoBs. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
But IngoB doesn't have to think. He's got the Roman Catholic Church to do that for him, and as they are never ever wrong, and never ever change their minds about anything, he can get on with his gleeful intellectual shit-flinging without having to do more than rationalise what he's typing.

Give IngoB the credit he deserves. Despite what IngoB might think, he isn't the only one around here with a basic understanding of Roman Catholic theology. The Roman Catholic theology I have known can be open, loving, and even playful.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
The best argument I have encountered for the Catholic Church is its generous, intelligent, irascible laity. And on that note, I would like to modify my post to clarify what I meant:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I pity anyone married to you...

Jeez, we all wind up saying that, don't we?


[ 19. August 2013, 20:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
IngoB, sorry, I certainly didn't intend to insult Lucifer.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am reading you very closely, I just don't see the difference. What I mean by "Christian marriage" looks awfully identical to "Classical Catholic marriage." Though I don't suppose you will grasp that your inability to see when people agree with you is just another symptom of the same sickness.

So for the record then, you are in fact claiming that many gays wish for a marriage which requires of them to have no sex before or apart from marriage, that will not allow them to divorce once married, and that will typically involve raising several children?

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There was a point where I would have explained IngoB's behavior away as dogged, or evidencing frustration in communicating his thoughts, but I have actually come to the conclusion that he just likes to hurt and shame people. He gets off on it. He'll take whatever heartfelt, carefully thought out post you write, twist it into its most mockable version, and adds a bunch of stuff that will poke you in your soft spots. The only use he has for this group of people is for gloating over. His "Declarations of Truth" aren't meant for the greater good of anyone. He doesn't give a shit about any of us.

You seriously can read this thread, to take an example, and then come to the conclusion that this is a one-way street of me hurting and shaming people, twisting words, etc.? That's just so ridiculous... if you throw shit at a fan, you will end up eating some.

What is true is that I simply won't let myself be bullied by hurt. That's the basic method here: claim hurt to make the other back down, force them to shut up by demanding charity, making it a matter of empathy that they retract. I'm sure it works brilliantly with most Christian pastors, who will reflexively switch into soothing damage control mode. But I'm not your pastor, I'm not even a particularly good Christian and this is definitely not the Church. So if you insistently throw yourself against my fist, you will just have to deal with the pain.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
He also seems to work under the assumption that God doesn't count what he does on the ship.

It is a guilty pleasure. It also is penance. A most convenient package deal...

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'd think at least being fair in what one says would be a priority. A personal one, mind you, for someone who claims the level of righteousness he does.

I have never claimed much righteousness for myself. Just rightness. Sounds similar, isn't the same.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's like he thinks throwing around lurid descriptions of what he thinks people's lives are like doesn't count as long as he doesn't actually use the phrase "I think."

I've thrown around lurid descriptions? I really am much more interesting and fun that I give myself credit for! Where can I read those then? And what else have I done without realising? Am I an accomplished ballet dancer? Have I cooked fugu fish for my guests? Do I breed frogs? Inquiring minds want to know...

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Well your opinion on that, which is that gay sex and gay marriages are sins and wrong, precludes you from the discussion on how gay people should construct their marriages.

Indeed.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Oh and thanks for calling everyone who has a civil marriage a participant in a sham marriage.

I didn't quite do that either, but it's close enough to let it count in Hell. After all, that was indeed some Hellish snark from my side and after I advertised it above, I can hardly complain if someone finally picks it up.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And then I giggle at how Francis is now his Pope. [Snigger]

Ouch, now that one hurt.

However, I believe that once St Ignatius of Loyola hits 8,000 rpm, the stored up energy will unload like a Tesla coil. So if you hear that Pope Francis was struck by lightning, then my bet is on an arc discharge from the Church of Gesu...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'd think at least being fair in what one says would be a priority. A personal one, mind you, for someone who claims the level of righteousness he does.

I have never claimed much righteousness for myself. Just rightness. Sounds similar, isn't the same.


We've noticed that. AFAIK righteousness comes from God, mere rightness comes from within. Are you denying the Almighty His part in you?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
So for the record then, you are in fact claiming that many gays wish for a marriage which requires of them to have no sex before or apart from marriage, that will not allow them to divorce once married, and that will typically involve raising several children?
I know such people- I have no idea of the proportions. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't either. I think it most reasonable to assume it's about equal to the proportion of heterosexuals who want such a thing, since that isn't exactly high either.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
What is true is that I simply won't let myself be bullied by hurt. That's the basic method here: claim hurt to make the other back down, force them to shut up by demanding charity, making it a matter of empathy that they retract. I'm sure it works brilliantly with most Christian pastors, who will reflexively switch into soothing damage control mode. But I'm not your pastor, I'm not even a particularly good Christian and this is definitely not the Church. So if you insistently throw yourself against my fist, you will just have to deal with the pain.
That's all fair enough, the problem we are harping on here is that you are actually far more often the bully than the bullied. Here you are bragging about it, and it's truly monumental of you to claim persecution.

But because you are so rational, you only count comments about your behavior if they come from people that you decide matter, I guess.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
So for the record then, you are in fact claiming that many gays wish for a marriage which requires of them to have no sex before or apart from marriage, that will not allow them to divorce once married, and that will typically involve raising several children?
I know such people- I have no idea of the proportions. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't either. I think it most reasonable to assume it's about equal to the proportion of heterosexuals who want such a thing, since that isn't exactly high either.
Me too. Nailed it, Zach.

What's good for the goose is good for the the gander. I don't get where you're going with this, Ingo, the same logic could be applied to banning heterosexual marriage, since, as Zach says, not many straight people fit (or even want to fit) the ideal, especially when it comes to premarital sex. Even if you're right, and most homosexuals don't want "Christian Marriage" (I doubt that's the case, I think that's exactly what many of them want), how does that support your argument when the same could be said for the majority of straight people?

(Eta: Hit reply by mistake before I'd finished the post)

[ 19. August 2013, 21:39: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
IngoB, sorry, I certainly didn't intend to insult Lucifer.

Quod licet bovi, non licet Iovi. You be careful where you go with this. (Translation can be inferred easily from this.)

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
AFAIK righteousness comes from God, mere rightness comes from within. Are you denying the Almighty His part in you?

Undoubtedly. But I'm sure I'll grow by encountering the many splendid examples of righteousness on this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know such people- I have no idea of the proportions. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't either. I think it most reasonable to assume it's about equal to the proportion of heterosexuals who want such a thing, since that isn't exactly high either.

Good. So we discover that what I wrote is fair enough.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Here you are bragging about it, and it's truly monumental of you to claim persecution.

Oh, I don't wish to claim persecution. The sheer absurdity of it all sometimes gets to me, I'm only human. But as you were. Please.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I don't get where you're going with this, Ingo, the same logic could be applied to banning heterosexual marriage, since, as Zach says, not many straight people fit (or even want to fit) the ideal, especially when it comes to premarital sex.

Actually, if you were to read my bloody post, or my repost, then you would find that that's exactly what I was getting at. Look, there must be a way in which I can say "I'm not sure that all this fighting is really about the gays, honestly. I think it is mostly about heterosexuals not wanting to have the nasty fact rubbed into their faces that their "marriage" means so little now that there really is not much of a reason left to refuse it to gays." so that it arrives inside your skull. But you have to give me some hint how that might be possible. Sign language? Smoke signals? Interpretative dance?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Hmmm. Looks like a black pot of goose sauce for a fine kettle of gander to me.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Actually, if you were to read my bloody post, or my repost, then you would find that that's exactly what I was getting at. Look, there must be a way in which I can say "I'm not sure that all this fighting is really about the gays, honestly. I think it is mostly about heterosexuals not wanting to have the nasty fact rubbed into their faces that their "marriage" means so little now that there really is not much of a reason left to refuse it to gays." so that it arrives inside your skull. But you have to give me some hint how that might be possible. Sign language? Smoke signals? Interpretative dance?
Goperryrevs is reading you quite clearly. It's just that leaping from your assertion that gays don't really want Christian marriage to "it's really about heterosexuals not taking marriage seriously" is so absurd that it hardly seems worth the time to remark on it.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Actually, if you were to read my bloody post, or my repost, then you would find that that's exactly what I was getting at. Look, there must be a way in which I can say "I'm not sure that all this fighting is really about the gays, honestly. I think it is mostly about heterosexuals not wanting to have the nasty fact rubbed into their faces that their "marriage" means so little now that there really is not much of a reason left to refuse it to gays." so that it arrives inside your skull. But you have to give me some hint how that might be possible. Sign language? Smoke signals? Interpretative dance?

Oh, Ingo, your posts are so huge that its hard to take them all in in one go. [Axe murder]

So. Most straights are screw ups, but some tiny minority are able to have the Ingo stamp of approval that they are 'Christian'.

Therefore gays will all be screw ups? Or will some tiny minority be capable of a proper marriage? If so, are you happy to define that relationship as 'Christian' marriage? What's the difference?

[ 19. August 2013, 22:41: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
meant to be an addition to Zach82's post:

And the implicit homophobia of that comment of "leaving it to the gays" with the echoes of leaving crumbs for the dogs.

Whenever the thought drifts across my mind of considering attending an RC church, it is quenched by all the screeds from IngoB I've read and the petty-minded righteously judgemental views he expressed.

[ 19. August 2013, 22:43: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I dunno. Heterosexuals don't value marriage, so they want to let gays get married? I just don't get it. Maybe it's my rotten, Protestant core.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: If the Vatican didn't care about clergy disobeying either, then perhaps this could go on for a while. Otherwise the schism wouldn't be sought by the churches, but rather imposed by the Vatican...
Maybe they will schism themselves away from anyone else. I'm definitely not the one to call that a bad thing. But my contacts with the RCC have taught me that there are many ways around Vatican prohibitions. Priests who live together with their 'housekeeper', priests who use the secrecy of confession to council their members about contraceptives, priests who perform marriages for gays but call them 'friendship ceremonies' in their letter to the bishop... I've seen it all and more.

As far as I'm concerned, the RCC can call 'marriage' whatever it bloody wants. But the threat to your stance doesn't come from me. It comes from the inside. And it will grow.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What is true is that I simply won't let myself be bullied by hurt. That's the basic method here: claim hurt to make the other back down, force them to shut up by demanding charity, making it a matter of empathy that they retract.

The gap between (1) shutting up and (2) actually recognising that you live in a world with other human beings when you open your mouth is wide enough to drive a truck through.

Although I will admit that a small part of me hopes that, if by some miracle you ever attempt to cross that gap, a truck will be coming along right at that moment.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
So for the record then, you are in fact claiming that many gays wish for a marriage which requires of them to have no sex before or apart from marriage, that will not allow them to divorce once married, and that will typically involve raising several children?
I know such people- I have no idea of the proportions. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't either. I think it most reasonable to assume it's about equal to the proportion of heterosexuals who want such a thing, since that isn't exactly high either.
Nailed it.

And this is perhaps the best licence we will ever get to turn around to the RCC and say why the fuck would we CARE what you think? You think that normal civil heterosexual marriage is shit, so we'll just go along and have normal civil homosexual marriage as well.

But here's the really galling part. The RCC isn't just standing at the doorstep of its own church ensuring that the homosexuals don't contaminate it's special kind of marriage - a kind so special that even most practising Catholics don't recognise it. It's out there actively campaigning to exclude homosexuals from an institution that the RCC doesn't actually think very much of.

The alternative is that Ingo has popped down here in Hell to provide us with a colossal waste of time on a subject that wasn't actually relevant to anybody. We've got Mudfrog wringing his hands in Dead Horses about the horrors of changes to UK civil marriage, and buried deep within one of Ingo's epic screeds was the point that civil marriage really isn't worth arguing about... but he feels the need to unload on us all about 'true' Catholic marriage anyway?

Either way, gosh, thanks Ingo. I've lost valuable hours of masturbation time to watching you do it.

[ 19. August 2013, 23:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I liked the part where he threw a hissy fit about the distinction between "Christian marriage" and "classical Catholic marriage" because... I don't know why, but it's fun imagining, in a schadenfreudisch sort of way.

Is schadenfreudisch even a word? We just can't know. Sigh.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So. Most straights are screw ups, but some tiny minority are able to have the Ingo stamp of approval that they are 'Christian'. Therefore gays will all be screw ups? Or will some tiny minority be capable of a proper marriage? If so, are you happy to define that relationship as 'Christian' marriage? What's the difference?

No, gay sex remains sinful and gay marriage ("gay matrimony", if you wish) an impossibility, as far as I am concerned. But the point is that if one defines marriage as most seculars and many Christians do ("loving intimate relationship, intended to be permanent and exclusive"), and studiously avoids any mention of procreation, then there doesn't seem to be much scope there to deny gays the so-defined marriage. We have always done it this way is not - I agree - a sufficient reason against distributive justice.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
As far as I'm concerned, the RCC can call 'marriage' whatever it bloody wants. But the threat to your stance doesn't come from me. It comes from the inside. And it will grow.

Well, we will see how it all will pan out. There have been better times for the Church, but also much worse ones.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And this is perhaps the best licence we will ever get to turn around to the RCC and say why the fuck would we CARE what you think? You think that normal civil heterosexual marriage is shit, so we'll just go along and have normal civil homosexual marriage as well.

Indeed, that's what I would say, if I were you.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But here's the really galling part. The RCC isn't just standing at the doorstep of its own church ensuring that the homosexuals don't contaminate it's special kind of marriage - a kind so special that even most practising Catholics don't recognise it. It's out there actively campaigning to exclude homosexuals from an institution that the RCC doesn't actually think very much of.

This is a game of proxies, on all sides, I agree. That said, it is of course entirely licit for the RCC to attempt to push the state into adopting her ideas about marriage. Just like others try to push their ideas. I just personally think that the current approach is a waste of time and energy.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Either way, gosh, thanks Ingo. I've lost valuable hours of masturbation time to watching you do it.

Well, that's my good deed for the day done then.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Is schadenfreudisch even a word? We just can't know. Sigh.

Yes, we can know. No, it isn't. You'd probably want "schadenfroh" there.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But the point is that if one defines marriage as most seculars and many Christians do ("loving intimate relationship, intended to be permanent and exclusive"), and studiously avoids any mention of procreation, then there doesn't seem to be much scope there to deny gays the so-defined marriage.

If one is the State, one does. Because the State, amazingly enough, contains an awful lot of 'most seculars and many Christians'.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But here's the really galling part. The RCC isn't just standing at the doorstep of its own church ensuring that the homosexuals don't contaminate it's special kind of marriage - a kind so special that even most practising Catholics don't recognise it. It's out there actively campaigning to exclude homosexuals from an institution that the RCC doesn't actually think very much of.

This is a game of proxies, on all sides, I agree. That said, it is of course entirely licit for the RCC to attempt to push the state into adopting her ideas about marriage.
Sorry, but no, that is precisely NOT what the RCC is doing. If the RCC was pushing the State to adopt her ideas, then she would be fighting to roll back the laws on divorce, for example.

What the RCC is doing is fighting vociferously for the status quo. A status quo full of things that the RCC actually doesn't like. But for some bizarre reason, this particular departure from RCC ideas about marriage is the one that will spell disaster.

Heck, I don't know, maybe sometime a couple of generations ago the RCC was in fact vociferously arguing against divorce or the pill or whatever as also spelling disaster. But currently all I see the RCC loudly caring about is the queers.

I actually tend to respect people who argue that we went wrong way further back, because it's at least consistent. But such people are few and far between. It was quite amusing, back in 2008 when gay de facto couples were given the same rights in Australia as straight de facto couples, to see a few of the anti-gay folk suddenly realise that they really should have fought harder against straight de facto couples getting much the same rights as straight married couples in previous decades.

But basically, yes, if the RCC wants to fight for 'true' marriage, then it should fight for all of it. All.

The reason it doesn't is that the heirarchy is aware it will appear vastly out of touch with the general public's views on marriage. Witness the reaction on this thread as people came to realise you were looking askance at the marriages of most Shipmates.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, if the RCC changed her teaching on homosexuality and gay marriage, then I would instantly leave her. I would not have a second of hesitation, I would be out in a flash (and yes, I know from experience that I can do this). And the point would not be that I'm so super-convinced of the evils of homosexuality and gay marriage that I could not possibly stand being in an organisation that supports it. Not at all. The point would be that I'm convinced (personal opinion) that the RCC has clear doctrine on this matter, and cannot accommodate such change without in fact blatantly contradicting herself. But if she can contradict herself so blatantly, then she is not Divine. And I have zero time for non-Divine institutions of religion. I have always gone my own way in matters of religion, and I do not need much spiritual company. (That's a statement about myself, I'm that way. It's not saying this is how people need to be.) The reason I'm with any one institution is because I believe they have the Truth with capital 'T'. If I don't believe so any longer, then it's bye bye and good riddance.

How very Protestant of you.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But the point is that if one defines marriage as most seculars and many Christians do ("loving intimate relationship, intended to be permanent and exclusive"), and studiously avoids any mention of procreation, then there doesn't seem to be much scope there to deny gays the so-defined marriage.

If one is the State, one does. Because the State, amazingly enough, contains an awful lot of 'most seculars and many Christians'.
Well, in that case the conclusion obtains for the State.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But basically, yes, if the RCC wants to fight for 'true' marriage, then it should fight for all of it. All.

She should indeed. However, the RC hierarchy sees itself as trying to stop a slide down the slippery slope; and then it makes sense to first maintain the status quo and stop further sliding, before trying to push back up the incline. Personally, I don't think that this is getting us anywhere, but the approach of the RC hierarchy has it own logic and no doubt will be followed till we reach the very bottom of that slope.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: However, the RC hierarchy sees itself as trying to stop a slide down the slippery slope
This is fighting the wrong fight. There are many threats to marriage. Homosexuality isn't one of them.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
Sorry, but no, that is precisely NOT what the RCC is doing. If the RCC was pushing the State to adopt her ideas, then she would be fighting to roll back the laws on divorce, for example.
She did so in the 1937 in Ireland. Divorce had been legal it was made unconstitutional. More recently it has fought divorce laws in Italy and Malta and Ireland (which amended its constitution to allow divorce). I suspect it chooses what battles it thinks it can win and divorce in the US is not one of them right now.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
There are times, Ingo, when I suddenly realise that you and I are really not all that different from each other.

Scares the bejesus out of me.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, if the RCC changed her teaching on homosexuality and gay marriage, then I would instantly leave her. I would not have a second of hesitation, I would be out in a flash (and yes, I know from experience that I can do this). And the point would not be that I'm so super-convinced of the evils of homosexuality and gay marriage that I could not possibly stand being in an organisation that supports it. Not at all. The point would be that I'm convinced (personal opinion) that the RCC has clear doctrine on this matter, and cannot accommodate such change without in fact blatantly contradicting herself. But if she can contradict herself so blatantly, then she is not Divine. And I have zero time for non-Divine institutions of religion. I have always gone my own way in matters of religion, and I do not need much spiritual company. (That's a statement about myself, I'm that way. It's not saying this is how people need to be.) The reason I'm with any one institution is because I believe they have the Truth with capital 'T'. If I don't believe so any longer, then it's bye bye and good riddance.

The change in doctrine on Jewish deicide didn't convince you that the Roman Catholic church is a fallible institution run by human beings?
Not enough Jews burned at the stake for it to matter, I guess.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
IngoB: However, the RC hierarchy sees itself as trying to stop a slide down the slippery slope
This is fighting the wrong fight. There are many threats to marriage. Homosexuality isn't one of them.
If they would put all this energy into living and promoting Christ-like lives, they might actually have a ghost's chance in Hell of changing the culture. As it is, they're a laughingstock to everybody except the hard-right fundies they circle-jerk with.

Of course that's what Francis+++ is trying to do, and IngoB hates him for it. Hmmmmm.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Aside/
Am I the only person who hears the refrain(same as its title) from OutKast's Chronometrophobia when reading the title of this thread? All of you as well, yeah?
/Aside
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do I breed frogs?

Of course not. The RCC doesn't allow marriage for frogs, therefore they're not allowed to have sex.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This is fighting the wrong fight. There are many threats to marriage. Homosexuality isn't one of them.

That is naive. Homosexuality is the contemporary issue which is driving the civil conception of marriage further away from what the Church considers to be the true and right conception of marriage. One does not have to agree with the Church to see that. Of course, one can be of the opinion that the Church should cease her efforts to lobby against these changes. One can thinks that the Church should not be doing that on principle grounds, or because it is in fact counterproductive. (Though the latter isn't as clear as some people make it out to be either - it is hard to know what the situation would be like without the lobbying efforts.) But to declare that accepting homosexuality concerning marriage is no threat to marriage as conceived by the Church is obviously wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The change in doctrine on Jewish deicide didn't convince you that the Roman Catholic church is a fallible institution run by human beings? Not enough Jews burned at the stake for it to matter, I guess.

What change of doctrine on the Jews? What do you believe to have been the doctrine, how do you believe it to have changed, and what level of authority do you believe had been assigned to that doctrine? (Also please note that I'm not denying all development of doctrine. The key text on this is by Newman.)

I think you will find that it is orthopraxis, not orthodoxy, which tends to be lacking in the RCC throughout history. To their damnation, RCs in all ages generally should have known better.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Of course that's what Francis+++ is trying to do, and IngoB hates him for it. Hmmmmm.

I do not hate Pope Francis. I just think that he is the final hurrah of the disastrously failing "aggiornamento" approach, and I worry that he will delay the necessary reform of the reform even further. He is also a Jesuit, and no Jesuit should ever be the ultimate authority in charge of the liturgy. It is, shall we say, not their strength.
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Aside/
Am I the only person who hears the refrain(same as its title) from OutKast's Chronometrophobia when reading the title of this thread? All of you as well, yeah?
/Aside

I've been singing it to 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious'. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is naive. Homosexuality is the contemporary issue which is driving the civil conception of marriage further away from what the Church considers to be the true and right conception of marriage.

Once people are getting married in pub function rooms with their own children as bridesmaids, I think you have to consider the RCC's precepts as pretty soundly marginalised. The equal marriage campaign is taking marriage more seriously than the current secular norm, not continuing its decline.

[ 20. August 2013, 11:22: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The Church of England will take 10-20 years, maybe less if they can agree that it be at the Vicar's discretion as with divorcees.

Oh dear, this sounds like compromise and meeting the other side of the debate in a way forwards that is sort of amicable for people who's consciences reach different conclusions to other people...

As has been made clear to me this is not allowed, so please move along with your compromise and take it elsewhere, it is not welcome here...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do I breed frogs?

Of course not. The RCC doesn't allow marriage for frogs, therefore they're not allowed to have sex.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not hate Pope Francis. I just think that he is the final hurrah of the disastrously failing "aggiornamento" approach, and I worry that he will delay the necessary reform of the reform even further. He is also a Jesuit, and no Jesuit should ever be the ultimate authority in charge of the liturgy. It is, shall we say, not their strength.

That link has material about a conservative being upset that everything wasn't going to be done in Latin anymore. The one true language of the church, apparently. [Roll Eyes]

Giving people liturgy in their own language - does that count as part of the disastrous failure?
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... What is true is that I simply won't let myself be bullied by hurt. ...

Get a t-shirt. It's catchy. It also warns the public not to expect any compassion or empathy from you.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
After sleeping on it, I've come to the conclusion that IngoB would be infinitely more compelling and likable if he could just develop a sense of humor. He's so gawddamn serious, it makes just want to lie down on the floor. A while back he said my existential dread about my faith was my Protestant DNA inherited from Luther's emotional abuse, but for him the Gospel hardly seems to be much of a joyful consolation either. More like just another opportunity to show us all how clever he is.

And I don't for a moment believe anyone could compartmentalize some sincere joy about one's faith that well. But that's just me- your kilometerage may vary.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Giving people liturgy in their own language - does that count as part of the disastrous failure?

I doubt that you are seriously interested, but yes indeed, I would say that it is a contributing factor. I've travelled the world considerably more than most, and if I can find a traditional mass in a country where I do not really understand the language, I can understand and participate in the liturgy almost entirely. If I have my bilingual missal with me, only the sermon and announcements will be lost on me. If I don't, then I'll also typically not understand the mass readings (my Latin is not that good). But all the rest of the liturgy will be just like at home. Universal. Catholic. It is simply not true that the Latin is a serious barrier to understanding. If you go to mass regularly, and have access to a bilingual missal or order of mass (the latter costs peanuts), then you will know what's happening by heart within a year. Because these parts are basically not changing. To give the mass readings in the vernacular (as well) is really the only thing that was needed to improve local "understanding".

Instead, if I now go to a place where I do not understand the language, then it is just blablabla - receive communion - blablabla, with no participation in the liturgy. The RCC used to be cosmopolitan but unifying in her liturgy, bringing all the world together under one roof. Now it is balkanised, nationalistic, with liturgies that only work locally and which are often enough in different stages of translation from the promulgated Latin standard. And has this change improved the appreciation of the liturgy? I see no evidence whatsoever that people are more engaged with the liturgy in the ordinary form than in the extraordinary form. And yes, I have had my experiences of both. In fact, most of my time as a RC I have attended the ordinary form, for many years in Germany and England basically every Sunday, and on occasion in countries all over the world.

I really am not a liturgy nazi. It is simply not something I particularly obsess about. I certainly do not dispute the validity of the ordinary mass. I do not dispute that it can be done in a beautiful way, or bear great spiritual fruit. I will even agree that some of the changes introduced to the mass were good and beneficial, which puts me squarely at odds with most traditionalists. Still, I do think that ditching Latin was a serious, serious mistake. As was the removal of Gregorian chant, while we are at it. It is one thing that I admire about the Orthodox, that they were more careful with conserving their liturgies.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
After sleeping on it, I've come to the conclusion that IngoB would be infinitely more compelling and likable if he could just develop a sense of humor. He's so gawddamn serious, it makes just want to lie down on the floor.

He's not the only one. There are a number of people here who could really do with limiting themselves to posting in the Circus just for a season.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
How very Protestant of you.

I love it when you talk dirty to me...

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Get a t-shirt. It's catchy. It also warns the public not to expect any compassion or empathy from you.

Conveniently, I've recently trimmed my beard to look more like Ming the Merciless.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is one thing that I admire about the Orthodox, that they were more careful with conserving their liturgies.

And yet Slavonic and Greek liturgies among converts in the Anglophone world are disappearing faster than virgin Catholic choirboys.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And yet Slavonic and Greek liturgies among converts in the Anglophone world are disappearing faster than virgin Catholic choirboys.

I am quietly confident that the Orthodox will fail to learn from RC mistakes and find their own unique ways to match the liturgical miseries that RCs have enjoyed over the last four decades. Such is human nature. Of course, importing lots of Protestants into their ranks will quite generally be to rock-solid Orthodoxy as gargling with vinegar is to teeth...
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: Homosexuality is the contemporary issue which is driving the civil conception of marriage further away from what the Church considers to be the true and right conception of marriage.
Is it the 'concept' of marriage that you are worried about, or is it people's marriages? I know a lot of people whose marriages are under threat: by domestic violence, by financial insecurity, maybe getting married hasn't been the best choice for them after all... the list goes on and on.

Those are very real threats with a high potential to put an end to their marriage. The fact that gay people can marry too isn't a threat to them at all.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, importing lots of Protestants into their ranks will quite generally be to rock-solid Orthodoxy as gargling with vinegar is to teeth...

Tell me about it. They're already making us too much like the Catholic Church in a rush to get us on the anti-Gay bandwagon. Fucking western baggage.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... What is true is that I simply won't let myself be bullied by hurt. ...

Get a t-shirt. It's catchy. It also warns the public not to expect any compassion or empathy from you.
Yup.

Also, it's one thing to not let squeamishness about someone's feelings hold you back, it's an entirely different thing to behave as if you have scored points when people express hurt.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, importing lots of Protestants into their ranks will quite generally be to rock-solid Orthodoxy as gargling with vinegar is to teeth...

Tell me about it. They're already making us too much like the Catholic Church in a rush to get us on the anti-Gay bandwagon. Fucking western baggage.
A positive comment from IngoB about any non-Catholic* is so rare, we should be encouraging it when it does happen. Now you've made him piss all over the Protestants where we ain't done nuffink wrong, and let him rope you in to it too. [Waterworks]

*Or, for that matter, about any living Catholic
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
IngoB. I'm sorry to have misunderstood. And I DO retract everything. Not that I understand you now. But you mean better than you come across to aging schismatics.
 
Posted by loggats (# 17643) on :
 
"Fuck Western baggage" made me lol. Not in an entirely good way either.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The Church of England will take 10-20 years, maybe less if they can agree that it be at the Vicar's discretion as with divorcees.

Oh dear, this sounds like compromise and meeting the other side of the debate in a way forwards that is sort of amicable for people who's consciences reach different conclusions to other people...

As has been made clear to me this is not allowed, so please move along with your compromise and take it elsewhere, it is not welcome here...

And Sergius-Melli will be among the last who oppose it in his sense of fraternity with those who oppose it. It will be interesting to see if he joins those who leave the church in opposition to the acceptance of same-sex marriage.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
IngoB, your penultimate post. Most amusing. And yes, I just wanna be loved by you. Doop-de-doop.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
"Fuck Western baggage" made me lol. Not in an entirely good way either.

That was mostly a swipe at Catholicism since the things that IngoB most hates in Protestantism are just as present in the RCC, from an Orthodox point of view. Or as we say sometimes, "The Pope was the first Protestant."

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
A positive comment from IngoB about any non-Catholic* is so rare, we should be encouraging it when it does happen.

Ah, then you are under the mistaken belief that IngoB is capable of changing his behavior based on the type of feedback he receives?

quote:
Now you've made him piss all over the Protestants where we ain't done nuffink wrong, and let him rope you in to it too.
Well, there's Protestants, and then there's Protestants. The ones who want to take the Orthodox Church back to the 19th century Russian pogroms, only with gays this time instead of Jews, we could do without. Twice over. And in that particular, they are much closer to the Catholics than to many of their (ex-)fellow Protestants.

It used to be that such people didn't hang around long. They would become Orthodox because we're conservative about some things, then decide we're not nearly conservative enough, and move on. One couple that used to go to our church as recently as a year ago has now joined a schismatic ex-Catholic group, because they're closer to the level of bitterness and anger that they are seeking (and bringing with them). The problem nowadays is that these people are invading the OC in such numbers that they look around and see people like themselves, and decide to stay. Time will tell if they drag the OC into embracing their own hate, or if the better elements of the OC (there are alas plenty of cradle with the same crabbed hearts) can drag them out of it.

[Waterworks] indeed.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Is it the 'concept' of marriage that you are worried about, or is it people's marriages?

The concept.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Those are very real threats with a high potential to put an end to their marriage. The fact that gay people can marry too isn't a threat to them at all.

It's not quite that simple. What you believe your marriage to mean, and what others around you believe it to mean, will influence how you live your marriage, in particular also when it is in trouble. To give an obvious example, the introduction of the "no-fault divorce" has certainly changed how marriages end. Not just in the obvious sense (how courts handle this), but also in the minds of people. Marriage is now something that exists only as long as both partner still agree that it does, it has no binding force of its own. It has become a lot more like any other romantic relationship then: if your girlfriend does not love you any longer, she will dump you; and if your wife does not love you any longer, it is just the same. You have to realise that it was not like that in the past. Whether you say that these "conceptual" changes were good or bad, they certainly were not insignificant.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Tell me about it. They're already making us too much like the Catholic Church in a rush to get us on the anti-Gay bandwagon. Fucking western baggage.

I assume we both know the truth value of that. If you want to leave this out there as your statement on gay issues in Orthodoxy, that's your choice.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, it's one thing to not let squeamishness about someone's feelings hold you back, it's an entirely different thing to behave as if you have scored points when people express hurt.

And where am I supposed to have behaved like that then?

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
IngoB. I'm sorry to have misunderstood. And I DO retract everything. Not that I understand you now. But you mean better than you come across to aging schismatics.

Thank you, I guess. But let's leave the prince of the world undisturbed in future, shall we? He's not beyond a bit of micromanagement if invoked insistently.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: The concept.
Well, I care about people more than about concepts.

quote:
IngoB: Marriage is now something that exists only as long as both partner still agree that it does, it has no binding force of its own. It has become a lot more like any other romantic relationship then: if your girlfriend does not love you any longer, she will dump you; and if your wife does not love you any longer, it is just the same.
You really don't understand anything about marriage.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Ah, then you are under the mistaken belief that IngoB is capable of changing his behavior based on the type of feedback he receives?
It wouldn't be the craziest thing I've believed.

quote:
Well, there's Protestants, and then there's Protestants...
That's all fair enough, but neither the first comment nor your response had anything to do with Protestantism. IngoB just brought them up out of the blue because... well, let's not speculate.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Giving people liturgy in their own language - does that count as part of the disastrous failure?

I doubt that you are seriously interested, but yes indeed, I would say that it is a contributing factor. I've travelled the world considerably more than most, and if I can find a traditional mass in a country where I do not really understand the language, I can understand and participate in the liturgy almost entirely. If I have my bilingual missal with me, only the sermon and announcements will be lost on me. If I don't, then I'll also typically not understand the mass readings (my Latin is not that good). But all the rest of the liturgy will be just like at home. Universal. Catholic. It is simply not true that the Latin is a serious barrier to understanding. If you go to mass regularly, and have access to a bilingual missal or order of mass (the latter costs peanuts), then you will know what's happening by heart within a year. Because these parts are basically not changing. To give the mass readings in the vernacular (as well) is really the only thing that was needed to improve local "understanding".

Instead, if I now go to a place where I do not understand the language, then it is just blablabla - receive communion - blablabla, with no participation in the liturgy. The RCC used to be cosmopolitan but unifying in her liturgy, bringing all the world together under one roof. Now it is balkanised, nationalistic, with liturgies that only work locally and which are often enough in different stages of translation from the promulgated Latin standard. And has this change improved the appreciation of the liturgy? I see no evidence whatsoever that people are more engaged with the liturgy in the ordinary form than in the extraordinary form. And yes, I have had my experiences of both. In fact, most of my time as a RC I have attended the ordinary form, for many years in Germany and England basically every Sunday, and on occasion in countries all over the world.

I really am not a liturgy nazi. It is simply not something I particularly obsess about. I certainly do not dispute the validity of the ordinary mass. I do not dispute that it can be done in a beautiful way, or bear great spiritual fruit. I will even agree that some of the changes introduced to the mass were good and beneficial, which puts me squarely at odds with most traditionalists. Still, I do think that ditching Latin was a serious, serious mistake. As was the removal of Gregorian chant, while we are at it. It is one thing that I admire about the Orthodox, that they were more careful with conserving their liturgies.

I was indeed quite interested, but largely for the purpose of establishing whether or not you are a complete loon. Now that this is firmly established, I can ignore reading you for content from here on in.

You think that everything was so much better when no-one anywhere could understand the Mass without learning a dead second language, so long as you as Mr Jetset could understand no matter where you went in the world, and fuck all the ordinary people who spent most of their lives in one place.

I mean, if it had actually been a dead BIBLICAL language* I might have understood. Authenticity or some such. But no. It's freaking Latin. A more self-absorbed and ahistorical church you could not wish for. Locked into a ritual dating from... well, from quite a centuries after the time of Christ for no reason at all.

You could not possibly have a better demonstration of how to communicate to people that it's not about them at all, it's all about the Church and the Church is not interested in the world outside the doors.

*Ah, but which one? Three to choose from, and even then there's such variation in style and period. Why, it's almost as if God decided in the Biblical period that he'd speak in whichever language was current at the time!

[ 21. August 2013, 00:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
And the LORD said unto Abraham: "egredere de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui in terram quam monstrabo tibi"

And Abraham said unto Sarah: "Where did I put that blasted bilingual missal?!"


(Giving a translation spoils the joke, but because I'm obliged to, it's Genesis 12:1)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, it's one thing to not let squeamishness about someone's feelings hold you back, it's an entirely different thing to behave as if you have scored points when people express hurt.

And where am I supposed to have behaved like that then?


Just general repetitive snottiness, of the general self-satisfied nature Ruth noted. Hell if you can project all kinds of motives and assumptions all over my gay brethren, why can't I take a shot at you?
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
"Fuck Western baggage" made me lol. Not in an entirely good way either.

That was mostly a swipe at Catholicism since the things that IngoB most hates in Protestantism are just as present in the RCC, from an Orthodox point of view. Or as we say sometimes, "The Pope was the first Protestant."

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
A positive comment from IngoB about any non-Catholic* is so rare, we should be encouraging it when it does happen.

Ah, then you are under the mistaken belief that IngoB is capable of changing his behavior based on the type of feedback he receives?

quote:
Now you've made him piss all over the Protestants where we ain't done nuffink wrong, and let him rope you in to it too.
Well, there's Protestants, and then there's Protestants. The ones who want to take the Orthodox Church back to the 19th century Russian pogroms, only with gays this time instead of Jews, we could do without. Twice over. And in that particular, they are much closer to the Catholics than to many of their (ex-)fellow Protestants.


d.

I would add to them, the ones who want to make us Eastern versions of the ECUSA
[Snigger]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
There is something to be admired about thousands of intellectuals toiling over centuries to knit together a system of belief that can appear completely internally-consistent¹.

There is something horribly, horribly sad about conflating an appearance of having an answer with the probability of it being true in any way.

There is something extremely gratifying watching Zach82 kick IngoB's ass all over Hell, pulping the ongoing drone of rationalization with pithy comments.

¹ You might have to squint a bit. And ignore all the non-internal stuff.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The change in doctrine on Jewish deicide didn't convince you that the Roman Catholic church is a fallible institution run by human beings? Not enough Jews burned at the stake for it to matter, I guess.

What change of doctrine on the Jews? What do you believe to have been the doctrine, how do you believe it to have changed, and what level of authority do you believe had been assigned to that doctrine? (Also please note that I'm not denying all development of doctrine. The key text on this is by Newman.)

I think you will find that it is orthopraxis, not orthodoxy, which tends to be lacking in the RCC throughout history. To their damnaeetion, RCs in all ages generally should have known better.

Whatever. I don't intend to read vast volumes of background for all the verbal diarrhea you spew.
It's hard enough to find and reply to comments you make on my posts.
The authorities for the claim of Jewish Decide probably started with whoever forged the Gospel of Matthew. Wikipedia lists other early contributors to the Christ-Killer meme.

The more recent statement that the Jews didn't do it was made at Vatican II and apparently reiterated by Pope Benedict in his book on Jesus.
There's also the self obvious point that the theory the Romans were not guilty because the Jews made them do it, between the time when the Romans invaded and forced the Jews to build many Roman temples and the time when the Romans wiped out the Zealots at Masada and destroyed the second Temple is ludicrous beyond belief.


Of course you may chose to term such a complete reversal on the Jewish Deicide as "doctrinal development" but if so, you can also apply that to gay marriage. Fortunately you won't find many early commentators on Gay Marriage that you have to develop away.


quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Of course that's what Francis+++ is trying to do, and IngoB hates him for it. Hmmmmm.

You have incorrectly attributed this quoted statement to me. I did not say it, even if I am amused at the thought that the Tiber may become a lap pool.

[ 21. August 2013, 04:52: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

There is something extremely gratifying watching Zach82 kick IngoB's ass all over Hell, pulping the ongoing drone of rationalization with pithy comments.

Wow, you read my mind!
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is one thing that I admire about the Orthodox, that they were more careful with conserving their liturgies.

And yet Slavonic and Greek liturgies among converts in the Anglophone world are disappearing faster than virgin Catholic choirboys.
As well they fucking should.

Cyril and Methodios (Enlighteners of the Slavs) turn in their graves every single time an Orthodox liturgy is served in a language not understanded of the people.

With the Presbyterians, the Orthodox are the scriptural translators par excellence in North America.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
There is something to be admired about thousands of intellectuals toiling over centuries to knit together a system of belief that can appear completely internally-consistent.

And Magisterium. Who wouldn't want something with a cool name like that? It sounds like the bestest Dr Who plot arc thingie ever.

For the Reformed (a not uncool term in itself) the equivalent knee-loosener would be The Word.

Look at the patina! The soaring infrastructure, the intricate detailing - feel the history. And if the hard surfaces and sharp edges hurt, all the better. It just proves its otherness to our poor, mean, messy, transitory and pathetic humanity.

[ 21. August 2013, 07:03: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze

And Magisterium. Who wouldn't want something with a cool name like that? It sounds like the bestest Dr Who plot arc thingie ever.

Phillip Pullman has already done it.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You really don't understand anything about marriage.

Fine. I'm glad we talked.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I was indeed quite interested, but largely for the purpose of establishing whether or not you are a complete loon. Now that this is firmly established, I can ignore reading you for content from here on in.

That is indeed Hell communication in a nutshell.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You think that everything was so much better when no-one anywhere could understand the Mass without learning a dead second language, so long as you as Mr Jetset could understand no matter where you went in the world, and fuck all the ordinary people who spent most of their lives in one place.

My economy class "jetsetting" allows me to experience something practically that would have great value even if nobody ever got to experience it like that. If you see an American proudly flying the Stars and Stripes in California, and then you see the same in Iowa, is it necessary that they visit each other and see each other's flag? Or does whatever happens there in their minds and hearts happen merely by knowing that other people will do the same all across the USA? There is a lot more that could be said but you are not reading for content any longer, and I only wanted to point out that you misunderstood what you did read.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Hell if you can project all kinds of motives and assumptions all over my gay brethren, why can't I take a shot at you?

And if I get taken to task about my projections, why shouldn't I take you to task about yours?

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Of course you may chose to term such a complete reversal on the Jewish Deicide as "doctrinal development" but if so, you can also apply that to gay marriage. Fortunately you won't find many early commentators on Gay Marriage that you have to develop away.

For a doctrine to be completely reversed, it has to exist in the first place. I note that your own Wikipedia link states clearly: "Although not part of Christian dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, preached that the Jewish people were collectively guilty for Jesus's death." Please note that unlike Protestantism, the RCC has a Magisterium. And however much that Magisterium might get ignored, misrepresented or misinterpreted in RC practice - including by RC clergy - it is ultimately the Magisterium that must reflect any Divine protection of the Truth (or not). Fuck-ups "lower down" are regrettable, but expected.

There is also a long and consistent history of popes speaking out against Christian practical antisemitism, starting with Pope Gregory I in the sixth century AD. See for example here for a summary, note the threat of excommunication. That is not to deny the rampant antisemitism in Europe throughout the ages, which clearly often also had the blessings of local RC clergy. But this cannot be declared simply as the official position of the Church.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you see an American proudly flying the Stars and Stripes in California, and then you see the same in Iowa, is it necessary that they visit each other and see each other's flag? Or does whatever happens there in their minds and hearts happen merely by knowing that other people will do the same all across the USA? There is a lot more that could be said but you are not reading for content any longer, and I only wanted to point out that you misunderstood what you did read.

One thing that could be said is that discussing a visual symbol in 2 different English-speaking States is a spectacularly poor analogy for the use of a liturgy in different countries that have different languages.

It's also completely wrong to reason that the only way people can be doing the same thing is if they're doing it in the same dead tongue.

Let me put plainly why I'm no longer interested in what you have to say on the main topic of this thread. There's absolutely no hope of you showing signs of movement on a moral issue if you can't even be comfortable with a change in the form of a liturgy - and I emphasise, a change in form not in substance. If you're the kind of person who pines for speaking in the language that just happened to be around at the time when the church managed to get itself into a position of power, then it's a waste of pixels to get you to consider the implications of cultural and scientific changes over the last couple of millennia.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
What was the official position of the church on the Inquisitions and Autos da fé and their associated executions?

What's the official position now?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you see an American proudly flying the Stars and Stripes in California, and then you see the same in Iowa, is it necessary that they visit each other and see each other's flag? Or does whatever happens there in their minds and hearts happen merely by knowing that other people will do the same all across the USA? There is a lot more that could be said but you are not reading for content any longer, and I only wanted to point out that you misunderstood what you did read.

One thing that could be said is that discussing a visual symbol in 2 different English-speaking States is a spectacularly poor analogy for the use of a liturgy in different countries that have different languages.

It's also completely wrong to reason that the only way people can be doing the same thing is if they're doing it in the same dead tongue.

Let me put plainly why I'm no longer interested in what you have to say on the main topic of this thread. There's absolutely no hope of you showing signs of movement on a moral issue if you can't even be comfortable with a change in the form of a liturgy - and I emphasise, a change in form not in substance. If you're the kind of person who pines for speaking in the language that just happened to be around at the time when the church managed to get itself into a position of power, then it's a waste of pixels to get you to consider the implications of cultural and scientific changes over the last couple of millennia.

It's not even the same language. Constantine would really struggle to understand spoken ecclesiastical Latin, because the pronunciation's completely different.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well, as long as he could read along in his missal he'd be fine, right?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's absolutely no hope of you showing signs of movement on a moral issue if you can't even be comfortable with a change in the form of a liturgy - and I emphasise, a change in form not in substance.

Seriously, you needed your (false) understanding of my liturgical preferences in order to come to the conclusion that I'm not going to move on the issue of homosexuality?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're the kind of person who pines for speaking in the language that just happened to be around at the time when the church managed to get itself into a position of power, then it's a waste of pixels to get you to consider the implications of cultural and scientific changes over the last couple of millennia.

The fun bit is that your reaction, as uncomprehending and dismissive as it is, is such a neat confirmation of the symbolic power I'm talking about. A mere whiff of Latin, and you go mental, because it is not just another language. Even to you, even now.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What was the official position of the church on the Inquisitions and Autos da fé and their associated executions? What's the official position now?

Let's leave issues of the "black legend" aside, since some people certainly did get killed over doctrines on account of the Church. But they did not get killed according to doctrine. Rather, that would be a matter of governance and discipline. Church governance and discipline has a somewhat better track record than the massive clusterfuck of secular governance and discipline throughout history, I would say, but that's really not saying much...

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, as long as he could read along in his missal he'd be fine, right?

Constantine would have found those writings somewhat odd as well. Ecclesiastic Latin for example often uses prepositions where classical Latin would have relied on the case alone. Remind me why we worry about that though?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Way to completely not answer the point about the Inquisitions and Autos da fé there, IngoB. Feel free to try again.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.

Edward Peters:

"The Inquisition was an image assembled from a body of legends and myths which, between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries, established the perceived character of inquisitorial tribunals and influenced all ensuing efforts to recover their historical reality." Inquisition, 1988.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: Fine. I'm glad we talked.
Well, fortunately that's what your position means: zilch.

I have been to a large number of weddings. All of the couples were committed to it, they wanted to put the effort in to make it work, to take it until the end. Most of these couples are doing very well today, but sadly a small number have divorced.

Sometimes the love isn't there anymore. They worked and fought until the bitter end. The prayed and had relationship counselling and what not. In the end it was not enough, you can't win them all. A divorce followed, which —although probably the best option under the circumstances— was painful for them both.

To dismiss this as "it has no binding force, your girlfriend dumped you, it is just the same" means that you are a judgamental shit who doesn't understand anything about marriages about people.

It is easy to sit in your high chair with your beautiful 'concepts' and be able to judge others by it. The fact that you completely misjudge people and marriage doesn't mean shit to you. As long as you can write your multi-paragraph posts defending your beautiful 'concepts'. I can tell you where to stick those concepts.


"Even if I could write logical eight paragraph posts defending the concept of marriage, if I didn't have love I would be a complete piece of shit like Ingo."
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
In high school, I had an English teacher with whom I tangled over some issue -- free will and predestination, perhaps? Not sure I recall. I was from a nominally Protestant non-churchgoing upbringing; she was the intellectual child of parochial schools and a college founded & run by Jesuits. I remember my frustration in those discussions: forced to admire her lengthy, detailed, rationales for her side(s) of the question, while being utterly and fundamentally unable to accept her arguments. Of course, I was unable to mount any real challenge to her, as a half-formed, half-educated 16-y.o.

At the time, I remember thinking what a pity it was that the enormous, complicated, elegant edifice of her seamlessly-fitted arguments had been executed in aid of such clearly inhuman conclusions. This thread puts me in mind of her.

My suspicion now is that there are unspoken premises here too far apart to be bridged. One side argues from a world made by God for God. The other argues from a world made by God for humanity.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

At the time, I remember thinking what a pity it was that the enormous, complicated, elegant edifice of her seamlessly-fitted arguments had been executed in aid of such clearly inhuman conclusions. This thread puts me in mind of her.

I don't just see IngoBs and Mudfrog's arguments as inhuman, I see them as profoundly unChristlike too.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
Karl [Overused]

Ingo, in terms of the conceptual qualities of what marriage is that you describe, I fully agree.* I have tried to follow them throughout my life, and in my marriage.

But guess what, I'm in the process of getting divorced. Is that because I don't share similar ideals of marriage to you? No. It's because real life is more than concepts.

That's not to say that concepts aren't important, but as soon as you divorce them (excuse the pun) from real life experience, they become meaningless. Theory and practice go hand in hand.

And our concepts change anyhow. And though you probably won't admit it, the Church's concept of marriage has changed over the centuries too. Part of that change is down to the very fact that our experience, our attempts - successes and failures - to put those concepts into practice make us re-evaluate those concepts. Things get discarded and other things get added - things like the concept of a husband owning his wife. Things like polygamy. Things like wedding traditions, or even the necessity of a marriage ceremony. Things like heavily-defined gender roles. Things like male-female only marriage.

I'd put up with your concept philosophy a bit more, if you only would step down from your ivory tower of musings every now and then and wallow in the shit of reality like the rest of us.

-------

* We disagree that those concepts can't be applied to a homosexual marriage, but as far as I can see you've given no reason why they can't be (hence the goose/gander observation), other than "because I / the Catholic Church say so.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
In high school, I had an English teacher with whom I tangled over some issue -- free will and predestination, perhaps? Not sure I recall. I was from a nominally Protestant non-churchgoing upbringing; she was the intellectual child of parochial schools and a college founded & run by Jesuits. I remember my frustration in those discussions: forced to admire her lengthy, detailed, rationales for her side(s) of the question, while being utterly and fundamentally unable to accept her arguments. Of course, I was unable to mount any real challenge to her, as a half-formed, half-educated 16-y.o.

At the time, I remember thinking what a pity it was that the enormous, complicated, elegant edifice of her seamlessly-fitted arguments had been executed in aid of such clearly inhuman conclusions. This thread puts me in mind of her.

My suspicion now is that there are unspoken premises here too far apart to be bridged. One side argues from a world made by God for God. The other argues from a world made by God for humanity.

Very good post. Yes, I do admire these intellectual edifices which can be constructed by some theists. I have an atheist friend who actually as a hobby studies Aquinas and other philosophers, as he finds it such an amazing deductive system.

But as you say, 'for humanity'? By bloody hell, no. Rather something cold and chilling and de haut en bas.
 
Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
One of the things I wonder about is what the world would be like if the RCC never existed.

I have this nagging feeling we're slouching on the shoulders of giants. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The fun bit is that your reaction, as uncomprehending and dismissive as it is, is such a neat confirmation of the symbolic power I'm talking about. A mere whiff of Latin, and you go mental, because it is not just another language. Even to you, even now.

[Killing me]

Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

Oh my Lord. Who spoke Aramaic.

Ingo, my dear deluded... colleague... it is just another language. One from history that nobody speaks. That's the point. I feel exactly the same way about people who decide that the King James Version is God's own style of English and won't read anything translated in the last couple of centuries. It's not an issue about a particular language, it's an issue about communication - an issue that I devote my professional life to. In that context, I feel much the same way about people who think that a legal document isn't a real legal document unless it's expressed in English from the Victorian Era.

And it's an issue about the ability to abstract a principle from a practice. There are far too many people in this world who follow practices without any thought to the rationale behind them, and who consequently aren't capable of seeing when the rationale might need reexamining and that the same principle might now lead to a different practice.

Latin was a sensible language for conducting church business when Latin was a lingua franca (ie for the exact same reason why the New Testament is written in Greek when some of its authors weren't actually all that great at Greek and were writing in their rough second language). It was precisely because of its usefulness across the boundaries of Europe that it took hold. And indeed, people continued to learn Latin for many, many centuries.

But to hold onto the idea of Latin in the church when Latin is no longer capable of being a method of communication for all but a select few is to elevate practice over principle while completely missing what the practice was for. Speaking about the 'universality' of Latin in 2013 is just bewildering, unless I suppose you're talking about the universal incomprehensibility. The world's most widely understood language today is English. That's the modern language that fulfils the function that Latin fulfilled 1500+ years ago.

[ 21. August 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But to hold onto the idea of Latin in the church when Latin is no longer capable of being a method of communication for all but a select few is to elevate practice over principle while completely missing what the practice was for. Speaking about the 'universality' of Latin in 2013 is just bewildering, unless I suppose you're talking about the universal incomprehensibility. The world's most widely understood language today is English. That's the modern language that fulfils the function that Latin fulfilled 1500+ years ago.

[Overused]
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I can see that those of us who want our gay marriage to be solmenized in Latin are going to have a hard time all round...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I'll pay that one.

But as far as I'm concerned you can do it Latin if you want to. Heck, some people get married in Klingon or Quenya. It's the idea that there's something wrong/less desirable about doing it in current vernacular that has me shaking my head.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The Church of England will take 10-20 years, maybe less if they can agree that it be at the Vicar's discretion as with divorcees.

Oh dear, this sounds like compromise and meeting the other side of the debate in a way forwards that is sort of amicable for people who's consciences reach different conclusions to other people...

As has been made clear to me this is not allowed, so please move along with your compromise and take it elsewhere, it is not welcome here...

And Sergius-Melli will be among the last who oppose it in his sense of fraternity with those who oppose it. It will be interesting to see if he joins those who leave the church in opposition to the acceptance of same-sex marriage.
Highly unlikely, since I have spent considerable energy on the issue trying to find relevant avenues to convince every man and his dog under the sun to see that the blessing/marriage of same-sex couples fits into Christian theology and should therefor be done.

I will still be a loyal member of the Anglican Church when others go, in the same way that I am still a loyal Anglican even though some have left over the issue of women's ordination to the Priesthood and Episcopate.

Don't mistake my desire for fraternity with a lack support on an issue since every time you do, you do me, any effort I put into finding a way forwards, and yourself a great disservice in the process.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Way to completely not answer the point about the Inquisitions and Autos da fé there, IngoB. Feel free to try again.

I thought you were engaging with the question whether the RCC has ever changed her doctrines. I answered concerning that. If you are merely asking whether the Church once considered it justified to kill heretics, and now doesn't, then the answer is 'yes'.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It is easy to sit in your high chair with your beautiful 'concepts' and be able to judge others by it. The fact that you completely misjudge people and marriage doesn't mean shit to you. As long as you can write your multi-paragraph posts defending your beautiful 'concepts'. I can tell you where to stick those concepts.

I'm an analyst, not a judge. I indeed deal in concepts, including concepts about people, not with people. Obviously errors in analysis can have disastrous consequences in the real world, if applied by lawmakers, statesmen, pastors, ... But I consider this to be a safe place for analysis. It is not a policy clearinghouse of influential people, it is a place of discussion. It is in a good sense academic.

As for the personal judgement of people, how much have you said about what it is like to be IngoB, and how much have I said about what it is like to be LeRoc?

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
My suspicion now is that there are unspoken premises here too far apart to be bridged. One side argues from a world made by God for God. The other argues from a world made by God for humanity.

I agree with the comment about the unspoken premises. However, please note what you are doing next. It is an attempt to say that the opponent is obviously wrong about these premises. The problem with all such discussions is however that opponents are rarely obviously wrong like that. You did not speak the unspoken premises then, you attributed premises that would be convenient for you. The real unspoken premises are hard to isolate, difficult to express and not particularly convenient for arguments. That's why they remain unspoken...

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But guess what, I'm in the process of getting divorced. Is that because I don't share similar ideals of marriage to you? No. It's because real life is more than concepts.

I'm sorry to hear that. But concepts can be more than ideals, and reliably shape real life if taken seriously. For example, if you were following the concept of RC marriage, then obviously your relationship options after your divorce would be a lot more limited than you presumably think that they are.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd put up with your concept philosophy a bit more, if you only would step down from your ivory tower of musings every now and then and wallow in the shit of reality like the rest of us.

The amount of shit I wallow in is probably about average. However, I see no reason whatsoever to share that shit in a public internet forum. My private life - good, bad or ugly - is simply none of your business. And I'm not a big believer in a "community" of anonymous avatars either (occasional Shipmeets non-withstanding). If you want to hear about my private life, well, share it some first. Non-electronically, in the flesh, as identifiable person.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

Not intrinsically, as a specific pattern of sounds, of course. But in people's heads, thanks to history and culture. In your head, as shown by your overly allergic reaction. There aren't just physical realities in this world, and the cultural momentum of Latin in Western culture is still large.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Way to completely not answer the point about the Inquisitions and Autos da fé there, IngoB. Feel free to try again.

I thought you were engaging with the question whether the RCC has ever changed her doctrines. I answered concerning that. If you are merely asking whether the Church once considered it justified to kill heretics, and now doesn't, then the answer is 'yes'.


OK. The church has changed its mind on things. So why would it be such a deal breaker if it changed its mind on this one?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm an analyst, not a judge. I indeed deal in concepts, including concepts about people, not with people. Obviously errors in analysis can have disastrous consequences in the real world, if applied by lawmakers, statesmen, pastors, ... But I consider this to be a safe place for analysis. It is not a policy clearinghouse of influential people, it is a place of discussion. It is in a good sense academic.

Here, then, is the crux of this miserable matter.

It staggers the mind, how you could be—blatantly and unashamedly—so unChristian, to deal with the living, breathing images of God as if we were merely the spiritless bones of your dry analytics.

You, white-washed tomb.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I thought you were engaging with the question whether the RCC has ever changed her doctrines. I answered concerning that. If you are merely asking whether the Church once considered it justified to kill heretics, and now doesn't, then the answer is 'yes'.
He's not getting why the now rejected moral claim "Killing heretics is justified" is excluded when we examine the claims that "The RCC has never changed," and that "The RCC is a faithful interpreter of moral law." The distinction between "doctrine" and "discipline" looks, to him, I imagine, to be a matter of terribly convenient question begging.

quote:
As for the personal judgement of people, how much have you said about what it is like to be IngoB, and how much have I said about what it is like to be LeRoc?
Well, he's a Protestant. The ignorant rubbish you spew about Protestantism is therefore a statement about what it's like to be LeRoc. If LeRoc is gay, you've stated that he probably doesn't want the holy "classical Catholic marriage" that you want.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm an analyst, not a judge. I indeed deal in concepts, including concepts about people, not with people. Obviously errors in analysis can have disastrous consequences in the real world, if applied by lawmakers, statesmen, pastors, ... But I consider this to be a safe place for analysis. It is not a policy clearinghouse of influential people, it is a place of discussion. It is in a good sense academic.

Here, then, is the crux of this miserable matter.

It staggers the mind, how you could be—blatantly and unashamedly—so unChristian, to deal with the living, breathing images of God as if we were merely the spiritless bones of your dry analytics.

You, white-washed tomb.

In the balance of head and heart, this does seem tilted a lot towards head, doesn't it? Not much heart around, yet isn't it heart that moves mountains? By 'heart' I really mean love.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: As for the personal judgement of people, how much have you said about what it is like to be IngoB, and how much have I said about what it is like to be LeRoc?
I'm in Hell, and I'm going to judge you about what you say here. The people who you judge (if you have a divorce because there's no love anymore then your relationship had no meaning) aren't.

You can stick your academic analysis right where it belongs. Jesus didn't stick to this analysis. He didn't go into 8 paragraph logical discussions about what sin people had committed. He looked at them.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
My suspicion now is that there are unspoken premises here too far apart to be bridged. One side argues from a world made by God for God. The other argues from a world made by God for humanity.

I agree with the comment about the unspoken premises. However, please note what you are doing next. It is an attempt to say that the opponent is obviously wrong about these premises.
First, that this world was made by God is in fact one of the unspoken premises. Personally, I'm in doubt on that matter, but what do I know? I'm merely one slightly more attenuated chimp among the rest of us.

Second, that this world was fashioned either for human beings or for their alleged creator is yet another premise; where have I labeled either one "obviously wrong" as opposed to one with which I agree or disagree? Saying "I can't agree with such-and-such" is a very far cry from stating "Such-and-such is obviously wrong."

One problem here is that you don't seem willing or able to acknowledge that any such distinction exists.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

Not intrinsically, as a specific pattern of sounds, of course. But in people's heads, thanks to history and culture. In your head, as shown by your overly allergic reaction. There aren't just physical realities in this world, and the cultural momentum of Latin in Western culture is still large.
But increasingly large numbers of people are utterly oblivious, then you have those with the allergic reaction, then those with other unhelpful reactions - including, possibly, those who think that the use of Latin means they personally are in some way special and can look down on the hoi-polloi who don't appreciate it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
How comforting it must have been to the people killed by the RCC that their hideous, unspeakably painful deaths weren't a matter of doctrine but only of practice. But of course modern scholars, bless their fuzzy little hearts, deny that the auto-da-fey ever existed, apparently. It was all made up by a bunch of nasty, panty-twisted pope-haters.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Slavonic and Greek liturgies among converts in the Anglophone world are disappearing faster than virgin Catholic choirboys.

As well they fucking should.

Cyril and Methodios (Enlighteners of the Slavs) turn in their graves every single time an Orthodox liturgy is served in a language not understanded of the people.

Agreed, and agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The fun bit is that your reaction, as uncomprehending and dismissive as it is, is such a neat confirmation of the symbolic power I'm talking about. A mere whiff of Latin, and you go mental, because it is not just another language. Even to you, even now.

You're right, it's not just another language. It's a DEAD language that nobody speaks at the breakfast table. You want to prevent people understanding their own worship for the sake of a jetsetting, put-upon, privileged few who want to be able to not understand the liturgy in every country they visit. DAMMIT YOU FUCKING SPANIARDS, why can't you cater to ME ME ME ME ME in my desire to have the same language in every country?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Way to completely not answer the point about the Inquisitions and Autos da fé there, IngoB. Feel free to try again.

There's a Supertramp song for people like you.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Saying "I can't agree with such-and-such" is a very far cry from stating "Such-and-such is obviously wrong." One problem here is that you don't seem willing or able to acknowledge that any such distinction exists.

I believe you have hit upon the crux of the matter (except the bit about despising all people who aren't carbon copies of himself).
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
OK. The church has changed its mind on things. So why would it be such a deal breaker if it changed its mind on this one?

Because there is a formal system of what the Church claims to be teachings of Divine truth, and matters of right relationships and sex feature prominently in it, whereas the matter of killing heretics does not. If the Church had authoritatively declared as a principle of faith and morals that God wishes all heretics to be slain, then it would be a "deal breaker" if she now said that one shouldn't do that. But the issue of killing heretics largely has been what we would consider "political" now: a matter of prudent judgement concerning the best way of protecting the common good. That's precisely why the attacks on heretics almost always involved secular authorities. A modern day equivalent could perhaps be seen in anti-terrorism legislation or the "war on drugs". Being a RC Christian was considered to be an integral part of what it meant to be a "good citizen" of the state, and heretics were dealt with as a clear and present danger to "public order". Of course, we see things differently now. But my point is that these killings were not "doctrinal" in the same sense that marriage was and is.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here, then, is the crux of this miserable matter. It staggers the mind, how you could be—blatantly and unashamedly—so unChristian, to deal with the living, breathing images of God as if we were merely the spiritless bones of your dry analytics. You, white-washed tomb.

Would it be fair to say that you are not a big fan of analyses?

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, he's a Protestant. The ignorant rubbish you spew about Protestantism is therefore a statement about what it's like to be LeRoc. If LeRoc is gay, you've stated that he probably doesn't want the holy "classical Catholic marriage" that you want.

Sure. And if LeRoc wants to spew ignorant rubbish about Catholicism and Catholic marriage, matters that concern me also personally, I will welcome that as contribution to the general debate and proceed to take it apart as the ignorant rubbish that it is. If we avoid discussing all topics that can have personal implications for someone, then nothing will be left to discuss.

The difference is simply that if I make a general point, then you can also refute it in general terms. That is the case whether that general point insult you deeply on a personal level, or leaves you entirely untouched. Whereas if I attack you personally, then you have no choice but to defend yourself in personal terms. I believe in topical discussions you can be expected to deal with the former, within limits, but not the latter. So if I claim that all Protestants are uneducated, then you can answer by providing counter-examples of educated Protestants, and can be expected to deal with having been called uneducated by implication as Protestant. You get your personal satisfaction simply by proving me wrong. But if I call you uneducated, then there's little you can do but protesting your own erudition. That leads to mere insult trading, which is typically not interesting and relevant other than perhaps for the creative use of language.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Jesus didn't stick to this analysis. He didn't go into 8 paragraph logical discussions about what sin people had committed.

Jesus isn't posting on SoF. I am, however, and so are you.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Saying "I can't agree with such-and-such" is a very far cry from stating "Such-and-such is obviously wrong."

OK, fine. I made a guess on how one would use your distinction of premises in an argument, and maybe I was wrong. But my actual point remains. And I was pointing out that usually one cannot show the other to be so "obviously wrong".
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: Jesus isn't posting on SoF.
But shouldn't you, as a self-proclaimed Christian, at least have somewhere in the back of your mind "What did Jesus think about this?" Especially if your treatment of this issue seems to be exactly opposite to His.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
When you are talking about physics with a colleague, IngoB, and you have a disagreement with him, I should hope you don't respond, "Well your view is obviously stupid, and you're just too ignorant to know any better. It's that rotten, string theory DNA of yours." You do that sort of thing when you're talking about theology at any rate. Because, it seems, you feel the Ship doesn't count.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I keep repeating it. The strange thing is: I like Catholics. I have a very high respect for them, and for many aspects of the Catholic Church. I've never encountered one who's even remotely like Ingo. I understand that he's a convert, maybe that explains it.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
IngoB: Jesus isn't posting on SoF.
But shouldn't you, as a self-proclaimed Christian, at least have somewhere in the back of your mind "What did Jesus think about this?" Especially if your treatment of this issue seems to be exactly opposite to His.
I am not sure what Jesus would make of SoF, actually. Yet we hear of the young Jesus: After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously." And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Lk 2:46-49) Note that he is not shown praying in his Father's house, nor doing charitable deeds. He is debating matters of faith with the learned. Of course, much of his later activity is also discursive. We hear at least as much about Jesus arguing as about Him praying or doing good, in fact. But then He was mostly acting as a teacher, explaining things and questioning mostly in a Platonic manner. It is before He increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man (Lk 2:52) that we find Him doing something vaguely SoF-like. So perhaps all this is more "what would teen Jesus do". I can live with that.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I keep repeating it. The strange thing is: I like Catholics. I have a very high respect for them, and for many aspects of the Catholic Church. I've never encountered one who's even remotely like Ingo. I understand that he's a convert, maybe that explains it.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I have no doubt that IngoB is a boffo sort of person. It's probably the bee's knees to drink a pint with him or spend an evening playing Dungeons and Dragons. But talking theology with him can really be a pain in the ass.

[ 21. August 2013, 17:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
IngoB: Jesus isn't posting on SoF.
But shouldn't you, as a self-proclaimed Christian, at least have somewhere in the back of your mind "What did Jesus think about this?" Especially if your treatment of this issue seems to be exactly opposite to His.
And He sure as hell is lurking.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here, then, is the crux of this miserable matter. It staggers the mind, how you could be—blatantly and unashamedly—so unChristian, to deal with the living, breathing images of God as if we were merely the spiritless bones of your dry analytics. You, white-washed tomb.

Would it be fair to say that you are not a big fan of analyses?
It would neither be fair, nor would it be correct.

Your analysis is beggared because, as you yourself say, you don't deal with people.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Jesus didn't stick to this analysis. He didn't go into 8 paragraph logical discussions about what sin people had committed.

Jesus isn't posting on SoF. I am, however, and so are you.
On that we can both agree. WWJD is is a lame rhetorical strategy and an even weaker theological one. WWJD is never the point. Jesus isn't here. I am. The point is, in light of the Christian Truth, what am I going to do?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
When you are talking about physics with a colleague, IngoB, and you have a disagreement with him, I should hope you don't respond, "Well your view is obviously stupid, and you're just too ignorant to know any better. It's that rotten, string theory DNA of yours." You do that sort of thing when you're talking about theology at any rate. Because, it seems, you feel the Ship doesn't count.

That must be close to a dozen times now that you have made reference to me attributing a "rotten Protestant core" and "invincible ignorance" to you, on this thread and elsewhere. Unfortunately, I do not really remember where and when I said this, or something like it. But be that as it may: I apologise for what apparently was a grave personal insult, I hope that you can forgive me on this matter and that we can now put it to rest.

This is in no way or form intended to stop you from critiquing me on this thread or elsewhere for other things I say or do. I merely hope to take this particular factor out of the equation.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
The Silent Acolyte: Jesus isn't here. I am.
I'd say that at least two or three are gathered in His name here. In other words: what Kelly said.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: Note that he is not shown praying in his Father's house, nor doing charitable deeds. He is debating matters of faith with the learned.
Way to miss the point. I'm not saying that arguing or debating is a bad thing. What I'm saying is that having long arguments about theoretical concepts without looking at the people involved, can be a bad thing.

We don't know what He said while He was a teenager in the Temple. For all we know, He could be arguing with the teachers: "Take your noses out of these beautiful theoretical concepts for a bit, and look through them at the people involved." Which would be rather consistent with His later teaching.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Well, here's the thread in question, IngoB, specifically when the crap about Protestants starts flowing.

"Impenetrable defensive structure." Puh-leeze. The best part is where you diagnose my "problem" as a Protestant, making very personal judgments about my character and beliefs indeed, and when the symptoms predicted by your generalizations turn out to have been completely wrong in my particular case, the new information somehow only confirms your analysis of me even more.

It's the same here on this thread. You make a generalization about homosexuals, contrary evidence is proposed, and yet the generalization and the conclusions drawn from it don't change on bit.

Do you argue like that about physics?

[ 21. August 2013, 19:11: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I keep repeating it. The strange thing is: I like Catholics. I have a very high respect for them, and for many aspects of the Catholic Church. I've never encountered one who's even remotely like Ingo. I understand that he's a convert, maybe that explains it.

Gosh, I've loved so many Catholics over the last 50 years, including a number of priests, who I thought were brilliant men, and also humble. When my dad was dying, it was his Catholic neighbour who sat with him every day, and my dad an atheist. Ingo just seems very defensive to me, but well, so am I. I suppose he's also snotty, well ...
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.


Snicker. The rebuttal to this would be to burn you at the stake. In a humane fashion of course.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Of course you may chose to term such a complete reversal on the Jewish Deicide as "doctrinal development" but if so, you can also apply that to gay marriage. Fortunately you won't find many early commentators on Gay Marriage that you have to develop away.

For a doctrine to be completely reversed, it has to exist in the first place. I note that your own Wikipedia link states clearly: "Although not part of Christian dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, preached that the Jewish people were collectively guilty for Jesus's death." Please note that unlike Protestantism, the RCC has a Magisterium. And however much that Magisterium might get ignored, misrepresented or misinterpreted in RC practice - including by RC clergy - it is ultimately the Magisterium that must reflect any Divine protection of the Truth (or not). Fuck-ups "lower down" are regrettable, but expected.

There is also a long and consistent history of popes speaking out against Christian practical antisemitism, starting with Pope Gregory I in the sixth century AD. See for example here for a summary, note the threat of excommunication. That is not to deny the rampant antisemitism in Europe throughout the ages, which clearly often also had the blessings of local RC clergy. But this cannot be declared simply as the official position of the Church. [/QB]

Well there's the solution for IngoB. They can keep the Magisterium about no gay marriage safely tucked where they kept the no anti-Semitism dogma for a millennia or so. In the mean time the RC clergy can perform same-sex marriage, preach it as a good thing and make polite applause when the pope says no.

As for unchanging RCC dogma there's always Usury
quote:

The First Council of Nicaea, in 325, forbade clergy from engaging in usury (canon 17). At the time, usury was interest of any kind, and the canon merely forbade the clergy to lend money on interest above 1 percent per month (12.7% APR). Later ecumenical councils applied this regulation to the laity.

Lateran III decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial.[15] Pope Clement V made the belief in the right to usury a heresy in 1311, and abolished all secular legislation which allowed it. Pope Sixtus V condemned the practice of charging interest as "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."

Theological historian John Noonan argues that "the doctrine [of usury] was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians.

Last I checked, the doctrine of Usury had changed enough to have a Vatican Bank.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The best part is where you diagnose my "problem" as a Protestant, making very personal judgments about my character and beliefs indeed, and when the symptoms predicted by your generalizations turn out to have been completely wrong in my particular case, the new information somehow only confirms your analysis of me even more.


Well put, and that's kinda what he does to everyone. we should just compile all your observations into a "Field Guide to the Rhetorical Habits of the Painfully Entrenched Bingo" and redirect newbies to consult that instead of bothering with him.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Don't mistake my desire for fraternity with a lack support on an issue since every time you do, you do me, any effort I put into finding a way forwards, and yourself a great disservice in the process. [/QB]

I mistake your total obstruction of any proposal to move forward discussed on here with "not yet" but what about my brothers who are Christian bigots and similar noises as a lack of support. Giving lip service while attempting to sabotage the discussion of any practical action is in practice a lack of support. But feel free to enumerate your efforts to actually do something. I haven't seen them mentioned in discussion on the ship.

I'm sure that once the people who ignore you and move forward achieve their goals, you'll be happy to step up and say you were making great efforts to find a way to make it happen. You've said as much in your last post.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
IngoB, for God's sake, in the bowels of Christ INCLUDE. Reach UP. Count your brethren - the ones you deny, refuse, brand - more worthy. The way GOOD Roman Catholics do. Like the sublimely broken Henri Nouwen.

Without contrived obscenities too.

They don't deconstruct to any words of Christ.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

Not intrinsically, as a specific pattern of sounds, of course. But in people's heads, thanks to history and culture. In your head, as shown by your overly allergic reaction. There aren't just physical realities in this world, and the cultural momentum of Latin in Western culture is still large.
I think Orfeo would agree it's been trumped by Public Opinion for quite some time now. [Biased]

[ 21. August 2013, 21:23: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously? You think Latin has special spiritual powers or something?

Not intrinsically, as a specific pattern of sounds, of course. But in people's heads, thanks to history and culture. In your head, as shown by your overly allergic reaction. There aren't just physical realities in this world, and the cultural momentum of Latin in Western culture is still large.
I think Orfeo would agree it's been trumped by Public Opinion for quite some time now. [Biased]
I still think it's hilarious to posit that I'm allergic to Latin. Let's just ignore questions of context and assume that when orfeo sits down with his box of Vivaldi sacred music CDs and opens up the texts, he breaks into a cold sweat.

EDIT: Mind you, Bach isn't any better with his damn German. Gives me stomach cramps. It's as if he was writing for an audience I'm not part of.

[ 21. August 2013, 22:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.


Snicker. The rebuttal to this would be to burn you at the stake. In a humane fashion of course.
I'm just trying to get my head round this. Do you mean that the Catholic Church would rebut those historians who are now saying that the inquisitions were blackened and partly fictionalized? Why would they do that?

So they would burn me at the stake, for decrying the 'black legend'? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Don't mistake my desire for fraternity with a lack support on an issue since every time you do, you do me, any effort I put into finding a way forwards, and yourself a great disservice in the process.

I mistake your total obstruction of any proposal to move forward discussed on here with "not yet" but what about my brothers who are Christian bigots and similar noises as a lack of support. Giving lip service while attempting to sabotage the discussion of any practical action is in practice a lack of support. But feel free to enumerate your efforts to actually do something. I haven't seen them mentioned in discussion on the ship.

I'm sure that once the people who ignore you and move forward achieve their goals, you'll be happy to step up and say you were making great efforts to find a way to make it happen. You've said as much in your last post. [/QB]

I actually put in the effort to produce a response, but to be frankly honest the only thing I can really muster to say in reply is 'go fuck yourself'.

I think 6 years of public record sort of puts your comment out...
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.


Snicker. The rebuttal to this would be to burn you at the stake. In a humane fashion of course.
I'm just trying to get my head round this. Do you mean that the Catholic Church would rebut those historians who are now saying that the inquisitions were blackened and partly fictionalized? Why would they do that?

So they would burn me at the stake, for decrying the 'black legend'? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I was not theorizing what those Catholic Church would do. I was responding to your nonsense myself, IngoB has already done his "Well, it really wasn't so many and besides it was usually the secular authority that did it at Church behest" little tap dance earlier in this thread.

Next you're going to tell me why all those Sephardic Jews who loved the humane Inquisition so much suddenly decided to move from Spain to the Netherlands, England, and the Levant. They must have gone for the waters.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I actually put in the effort to produce a response, but to be frankly honest the only thing I can really muster to say in reply is 'go fuck yourself'.

I think 6 years of public record sort of puts your comment out...

And what a surprise that your actually putting in the effort didn't actually produce any actual tangible result.

If you bothered to read the thread title and the OP and many of the posters here before IngoB started bloviating, you'll note that topic of the thread "Go Fuck Yourself".
It's addressed to you and your six years of public record S-M

Go fuck yourself S-M. Or go lick some homophobic fellow Christian bigot's boots while you cream in your daintily embroidered yet ever so manly frock.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My understanding is that secular historians tend to argue today that the inquisitions were considerably blackened, as part of anti-Catholic propaganda, and were not as bad as once thought. Indeed, there are even some arguments that the inquisitions were more humane than the secular authorities, and prisoners would try to be moved from the latter to the former.


Snicker. The rebuttal to this would be to burn you at the stake. In a humane fashion of course.
I'm just trying to get my head round this. Do you mean that the Catholic Church would rebut those historians who are now saying that the inquisitions were blackened and partly fictionalized? Why would they do that?

So they would burn me at the stake, for decrying the 'black legend'? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I was not theorizing what those Catholic Church would do. I was responding to your nonsense myself, IngoB has already done his "Well, it really wasn't so many and besides it was usually the secular authority that did it at Church behest" little tap dance earlier in this thread.

Next you're going to tell me why all those Sephardic Jews who loved the humane Inquisition so much suddenly decided to move from Spain to the Netherlands, England, and the Levant. They must have gone for the waters.

So you are saying that the idea of the 'black legend' is itself fiction?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Your analysis is beggared because, as you yourself say, you don't deal with people.

I still don't know what you are really getting at. What precisely would you have me do, and how do you expect it to change my analysis?

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The point is, in light of the Christian Truth, what am I going to do?

Yeah, well. Personally I like to apply the light of Christian Truth in homeopathic doses to my life, a bit like a vampire worrying about sunburn. Also, I trust my ability to discern Christian Truth from scratch about as far as I can spit. That's just me though.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I'm saying is that having long arguments about theoretical concepts without looking at the people involved, can be a bad thing.

Well? Have a look then and tell us what we haven't considered in these arguments.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, here's the thread in question, IngoB, specifically when the crap about Protestants starts flowing.

Let's just say that I was free-flowing and you were not, as you briefly managed to notice here.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The best part is where you diagnose my "problem" as a Protestant, making very personal judgments about my character and beliefs indeed, and when the symptoms predicted by your generalizations turn out to have been completely wrong in my particular case, the new information somehow only confirms your analysis of me even more.

You say "completely wrong", I say "spot on", let's call the whole thing off. Seriously though, let's.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's the same here on this thread. You make a generalization about homosexuals, contrary evidence is proposed, and yet the generalization and the conclusions drawn from it don't change on bit.

Well, let's just wait until the contrary evidence has turned from a hopeful proposition into a tangible reality. You might just remember that you weren't really able to find fault with my generalization?

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you argue like that about physics?

I don't argue much about physics these days. But anyhow, there's little scope for arguments like this in physics. It's mostly applied maths.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In the mean time the RC clergy can perform same-sex marriage, preach it as a good thing and make polite applause when the pope says no.

Seriously, what's the point of writing something like that?

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for unchanging RCC dogma there's always Usury ... Last I checked, the doctrine of Usury had changed enough to have a Vatican Bank.

Usury is indeed an interesting case. What changed there is the meaning of money. Basically, modernity developed capitalism. And in capitalism, money itself is expected to work, money earns more money. So if I lend you money but ask for no interest, then actually I'm losing money. Because I could have invested my money elsewhere, and received more money back for my trouble. Interest then becomes (or can become, if appropriate) a just compensation for my losses. Now, this may seem all totally obvious to you. But that's because you are a capitalist (even if you have very little capital). You share that understanding. It was not the understanding of money when the usury rules were developed. Money then was more like a resource, a way of storing abundance. Instead of saving up grain, one was stacking gold coins, but the principle was the same. Then, if I give you some of my saved-up resources for temporary use, why should I expect to get more back? It's not as if I lost anything just because you were holding onto it for a while. If I lend you a coffee cup, because you need one and I have one to spare, then I do not expect to get two coffee cups back. That's the basis of the usury rules, and it is a basis that does not apply any longer because we don't do money that way anymore.

Anyway, there are some rather fascinating studies on this on the net, as I remember from the last time I looked.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
IngoB, for God's sake, in the bowels of Christ INCLUDE. Reach UP. Count your brethren - the ones you deny, refuse, brand - more worthy. The way GOOD Roman Catholics do. Like the sublimely broken Henri Nouwen.

I've seen how you include, Martin. I want no part of it.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So you are saying that the idea of the 'black legend' is itself fiction?

Anti-catholics in various times and places created exaggerations of the duration and times of Catholic persecution of Jews, Moors, unreified homosexuals and protestants. Certainly Catholics in the nineteenth century in the US were treated badly and assumed to be as toxic as their predecessors.

That's not to say these acts didn't occur or were "humane" or insignificantly trivial in number. People were tortured, killed, forced to convert or handed over to an obedient secular state to do the same.
They may have been late in coming but the apologies by John Paul II were not the errors of someone who wasn't as smart as IngoB. When you start getting arguments like "the humane inquisition" you are witnessing bullshit scholarship by people who are impressed with their own cleverness.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So you are saying that the idea of the 'black legend' is itself fiction?

Anti-catholics in various times and places created exaggerations of the duration and times of Catholic persecution of Jews, Moors, unreified homosexuals and protestants. Certainly Catholics in the nineteenth century in the US were treated badly and assumed to be as toxic as their predecessors.

That's not to say these acts didn't occur or were "humane" or insignificantly trivial in number. People were tortured, killed, forced to convert or handed over to an obedient secular state to do the same.
They may have been late in coming but the apologies by John Paul II were not the errors of someone who wasn't as smart as IngoB. When you start getting arguments like "the humane inquisition" you are witnessing bullshit scholarship by people who are impressed with their own cleverness.

Has anyone mentioned the 'humane inquisition'? I don't recollect that. My point was that some historians have argued that in some countries the inquisitions could be more humane than the secular authorities. One reason for this, is that the secular powers might treat heresy as treason, the punishment for which could be severe. The inquisitions often prescribed penance, although of course, they could and did use torture, and handed people over to be executed.

I've never come across a historian who said that the inquisitions were OK; but some of them have argued that their history was heavily propagandized, as part of Protestant and patriotic (and anti-Spanish) rhetoric. Hence, the 'black legend', which seems to have endured for centuries, and of course, still exists in the popular imagination (well, I think it does).

But of course, historians have been able to actually study the detailed notes and minutes of the inquisitions themselves.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
IngoB: Well? Have a look then and tell us what we haven't considered in these arguments.
You've dismissed people who have divorced as people who are in just any relationship without binding force who will just dump eachother.

What you haven't considered is that there are people here. People who love, who struggle, who give it all they got, who go until the last bit.

But of course, people aren't of the slightest interest to you. They are just objects that you can judge on the basis of your beautiful 'concepts'.

Protecting these concepts is of the utmost important to you. Even if it goes at the cost of people who get hurt in the process.

In Jesus' time, they brought people to him, with all kinds of beautiful concepts about sin and how they deserved it. I'm sure that they could defend these concepts in brilliant eloquent multi-paragraph posts with splendid logic if they had access to a resource like the Ship. Heck, I'm sure that you could too.

Jesus instead looked at the person.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Sometimes I think some Christian sects have the same relationship with Jesus that American Republicans do with Ronald Reagan. They are happy to use him as a figurehead, but would not welcome a person with his policies into the current organisation.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Has anyone mentioned the 'humane inquisition'? I don't recollect that. My point was that some historians have argued that in some countries the inquisitions could be more humane than the secular authorities. One reason for this, is that the secular powers might treat heresy as treason, the punishment for which could be severe. The inquisitions often prescribed penance, although of course, they could and did use torture, and handed people over to be executed.

I've never come across a historian who said that the inquisitions were OK; but some of them have argued that their history was heavily propagandized, as part of Protestant and patriotic (and anti-Spanish) rhetoric. Hence, the 'black legend', which seems to have endured for centuries, and of course, still exists in the popular imagination (well, I think it does).

But of course, historians have been able to actually study the detailed notes and minutes of the inquisitions themselves.

So, the inquisitions in some countries were not OK but they were exaggerated by later historians to be bad and in some countries they were not so bad? Is that your point?

I have on occasion in the past read snippets of the tortures. I don't have the stomach to research this thoroughly.
I think in some countries (e.g. Spain) they did very bad things to people. You may try to trivialize it (not so many documented cases, and they handed the victims over to the secular state to kill them in an agonizing fashion) but I find this type of argument despicable. I also think there's ample historical evidence of how the people they were treating reacted such as flight and Marranos (crypto Jews) to belie the picture of the not so bad Inquisition.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Kinda like saying, the various 20C. pograms killed fewer people than previously thought, so therefore not so bad?

[ 22. August 2013, 01:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Usury is indeed an interesting case. What changed there is the meaning of money. Basically, modernity developed capitalism. And in capitalism, money itself is expected to work, money earns more money. So if I lend you money but ask for no interest, then actually I'm losing money. Because I could have invested my money elsewhere, and received more money back for my trouble. Interest then becomes (or can become, if appropriate) a just compensation for my losses.

In other words, everybody else is doing it so it's now okay if we do as well?

Wow. Just... wow. What amazing moral leadership in THAT area. You basically just offered a justification that was all about keeping up with the secular Joneses.

[ 22. August 2013, 01:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ingo--

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This is fighting the wrong fight. There are many threats to marriage. Homosexuality isn't one of them.

That is naive. Homosexuality is the contemporary issue which is driving the civil conception of marriage further away from what the Church considers to be the true and right conception of marriage. One does not have to agree with the Church to see that.

{snip}

But to declare that accepting homosexuality concerning marriage is no threat to marriage as conceived by the Church is obviously wrong.

That's bizarre. Straight marriage was in deep trouble lonnnnnnng before the marriage-equality struggles of the last few decades. Your version is like complaining when birds nest in the ruins of a castle. The birds ain't the problem.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
You say "completely wrong", I say "spot on", let's call the whole thing off. Seriously though, let's.
That would be calling the whole thing off with you claiming to know more about my own personal perspective as a Protestant than me.

Which is stupid, and consequently is the sort of behavior you're being raked over the coals for here. It's not, it so happens, the rational exposition of ideas you claim to solely engage in either.

quote:
Well, let's just wait until the contrary evidence has turned from a hopeful proposition into a tangible reality. You might just remember that you weren't really able to find fault with my generalization?
I remember no such thing. I said I know people who directly contradict it. One in particular is more tangible than the others, because I greatly dislike him. But that's another matter entirely.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Usury is indeed an interesting case. What changed there is the meaning of money. Basically, modernity developed capitalism. And in capitalism, money itself is expected to work, money earns more money. So if I lend you money but ask for no interest, then actually I'm losing money. Because I could have invested my money elsewhere, and received more money back for my trouble. Interest then becomes (or can become, if appropriate) a just compensation for my losses.

In other words, everybody else is doing it so it's now okay if we do as well?

Wow. Just... wow. What amazing moral leadership in THAT area. You basically just offered a justification that was all about keeping up with the secular Joneses.

Look on the bright side - if IngoB's correct, then maybe when the RCC's rejection of same-sex marriage starts costing it money, it'll eventually discover that the meaning of marriage can change just like the meaning of money did...
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Your analysis is beggared because, as you yourself say, you don't deal with people.

I still don't know what you are really getting at. What precisely would you have me do, and how do you expect it to change my analysis?
Which returns us, again, to the original fuck you, though I have accepted the suggestion that whitewashed tomb is the more apt epithet.
quote:
Originally posed by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Fuck you.
Here you haul out this scurrilous, false smear about sexually dissolute gay men. It is tangential to your actual argument so you can easily disavow it, but it is still a convenient salvo in your broadside.

It's like calling 20th-century Africa-Americans shiftless and lazy.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You say "completely wrong", I say "spot on", let's call the whole thing off. Seriously though, let's.


[Killing me]

Is someone holding a gun to your head and screaming "TYPE!" every time Zach posts?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Look on the bright side - if IngoB's correct, then maybe when the RCC's rejection of same-sex marriage starts costing it money, it'll eventually discover that the meaning of marriage can change just like the meaning of money did...

If costing the RCC money were all it took, you'd think they would have been a bit more forceful about the choir boy buggering problem, and we wouldn't have (say) Vatican officials blaming the youths.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In the mean time the RC clergy can perform same-sex marriage, preach it as a good thing and make polite applause when the pope says no.

Seriously, what's the point of writing something like that?

How else can you respond to an evasion like "Anti-Semitism was always prohibited in principal even if it occurred in widely in practice by the clergy."


quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for unchanging RCC dogma there's always Usury ... Last I checked, the doctrine of Usury had changed enough to have a Vatican Bank.

Usury is indeed an interesting case. What changed there is the meaning of money. Basically, modernity developed capitalism. And in capitalism, money itself is expected to work, money earns more money. So if I lend you money but ask for no interest, then actually I'm losing money. Because I could have invested my money elsewhere, and received more money back for my trouble. Interest then becomes (or can become, if appropriate) a just compensation for my losses. Now, this may seem all totally obvious to you. But that's because you are a capitalist (even if you have very little capital). You share that understanding. It was not the understanding of money when the usury rules were developed. Money then was more like a resource, a way of storing abundance. Instead of saving up grain, one was stacking gold coins, but the principle was the same. Then, if I give you some of my saved-up resources for temporary use, why should I expect to get more back? It's not as if I lost anything just because you were holding onto it for a while. If I lend you a coffee cup, because you need one and I have one to spare, then I do not expect to get two coffee cups back. That's the basis of the usury rules, and it is a basis that does not apply any longer because we don't do money that way anymore.

Anyway, there are some rather fascinating studies on this on the net, as I remember from the last time I looked.

The fact of capitalism that interest is money works for you was pretty well understood by moneylenders and borrowers from a time well before the Usury prohibitions were promulgated by Christians. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any need for the rules.
Nevertheless, the dogma changed, or the dogma magically meant something else when as you put it the concept of money changed.

In a similar fashion the concept of marriage has changed. If nothing else the Married Woman's Property Act makes it clear that marriage is an act regulated by the state. Modern marriage is an equal partnership without the need to provide children and is now going to include couples who can't necessarily procreate without assistance. So your dogma can magically transform to handle this changed fact or change in the same way the church dogma on usury has mutated.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Usury is indeed an interesting case. What changed there is the meaning of money. Basically, modernity developed capitalism. And in capitalism, money itself is expected to work, money earns more money. So if I lend you money but ask for no interest, then actually I'm losing money. Because I could have invested my money elsewhere, and received more money back for my trouble. Interest then becomes (or can become, if appropriate) a just compensation for my losses.

In other words, everybody else is doing it so it's now okay if we do as well?

Wow. Just... wow. What amazing moral leadership in THAT area. You basically just offered a justification that was all about keeping up with the secular Joneses.

Look on the bright side - if IngoB's correct, then maybe when the RCC's rejection of same-sex marriage starts costing it money, it'll eventually discover that the meaning of marriage can change just like the meaning of money did...
Now I'm wondering what the largest sources of money are. I'm guessing it isn't actually the collection plate...

But seriously, I'm gobsmacked. Apparently modernity can change the meaning of money just fine, but woe betide anyone suggesting that modernity has changed the meaning of marriage. And hey, 'interest' is a modern concept! Apparently when those old folks said don't make money out of lending, they had no idea about how you make money out of lending.

The hypocrisy is rank.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Kinda like saying, the various 20C. pograms killed fewer people than previously thought, so therefore not so bad?

Well, you seem to be arguing that anti-Catholic mythology is preferable to empirical historical studies. OK, if you prefer legends to empirical history, you can go with that. How about the Christian Dark Ages? Should we just accept that also without actually studying what happened? Hell, there are tons of anti-Christian and anti-Catholic myths - let's just swallow them all!
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You've dismissed people who have divorced as people who are in just any relationship without binding force who will just dump eachother.

Sigh. No, I didn't. I've pointed out that the law, by introducing "no fault divorce", has made divorce of a marriage essentially equal to the breakup of any other romantic relationship between people. There is now no special privilege of marriage that would increase its permanence before the law and possibly against the current will of one of the partners. If one wants to dump the other, then one can. My argument was that this change actually has changed how people treat marriage: how they get into it, what they expect living it, and obviously how they get out of it. On average, across the population. You may disagree with this suggestion, but that was my point. And we were discussing the influence of ideas on marriage as a whole, we were not discussing any specific marriage.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What you haven't considered is that there are people here. People who love, who struggle, who give it all they got, who go until the last bit.

Some will, some won't. Do you doubt that? If not, then do we see any movement in the median behaviour? And anyhow, what is the "last bit"? As it happens, that is precisely what the "no fault" divorce impacted on.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Protecting these concepts is of the utmost important to you. Even if it goes at the cost of people who get hurt in the process.

Discussing these concepts is what I'm here for. That's what I believe SoF (at least Purgatory and to some degree Hell) are about. If people get hurt by such discussions, they shouldn't bloody participate in them. It's a largely free internet, go somewhere that won't challenge you if you can't take this.

I will not tiptoe around people's sensibilities here. Neither do I expect them to tiptoe around mine. I will stick to the rules of this place, and above those I will actually refrain from outright personal attacks, just because they tend to not lead to discussions that I care about. That's it. That's absolutely all you will ever get out of me here. And if that terribly hurts you and makes you cry, then your face will get wet. If one day I decide that all this is instead making baby Jesus cry, then you can bet your life on it that the incessant rhetorical whine here wasn't a factor. And the one and only thing that will happen here in that case is my absence. Was that clear enough? Do you copy?

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Jesus instead looked at the person.

Fine. Go look at some persons somewhere. If you ever want to discuss what you have seen, this would be one possible place for it.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wow. Just... wow. What amazing moral leadership in THAT area. You basically just offered a justification that was all about keeping up with the secular Joneses.

It is not the Church's job to run the economy. We lay people get to decide how we do that. It is the Church's job to provide moral guidance to us according to what we decided to do in this area. In this particular case, we decided to use money very differently. In consequence, the moral recommendations of the Church concerning money changed. Where precisely do you see a problem with that?

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
That's bizarre. Straight marriage was in deep trouble lonnnnnnng before the marriage-equality struggles of the last few decades. Your version is like complaining when birds nest in the ruins of a castle. The birds ain't the problem.

No, it's not like birds nesting, it's like people coming to take the stones from the ruins to build something else. Now, I personally agree that there is little point in defending the ruins. However, I do understand that those whose dream it is to rebuild the ruins back to their old splendour are fighting those who are taking the stones.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That would be calling the whole thing off with you claiming to know more about my own personal perspective as a Protestant than me.

OK then... Your inability to take a step back and allow some compromise is likely also part of you rotten Protestant DNA: here you stand and can do no other than being a dickhead. I have to agree though that calling you invincibly wrong does not quite hit the mark. While you are way more stupid than you think you are, you are not really stupid enough to escape moral responsibility. But by all means, carry your grievances around with you till you die, for all I care. I'm sure Christ will be highly impressed by the pristine condition in which you have kept them.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I remember no such thing.

I suggested that there are not many of X and you ended having to admit that there are likely not many of X. The end.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Which returns us, again, to the original fuck you, though I have accepted the suggestion that whitewashed tomb is the more apt epithet.

So nothing concrete? I thought so.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here you haul out this scurrilous, false smear about sexually dissolute gay men.

False smear? Are you sure that you have read carefully what I wrote there? Because as Zach82 discovered to his discomfort, it is most likely true.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It is tangential to your actual argument so you can easily disavow it, but it is still a convenient salvo in your broadside. It's like calling 20th-century Africa-Americans shiftless and lazy.

It wasn't tangential at all to what I was on about (that most gays do not really want what the RCC is prepared to give to heterosexuals) and as others have noted correctly it was more a general critique of modern society than particularly targeted at gays.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The fact of capitalism that interest is money works for you was pretty well understood by moneylenders and borrowers from a time well before the Usury prohibitions were promulgated by Christians. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any need for the rules. Nevertheless, the dogma changed, or the dogma magically meant something else when as you put it the concept of money changed.

Obviously moneylenders always understood that lending money is a way of making a profit. Usury prohibitions were saying that this profit is not just, because it was treating money in a way that was at odds with how everybody else was using money. In particular, regular business and work was not relying on money having a life on its own. You stored your gold in a treasure chest, you did not put it into a bank where you expected it to multiply as if by magic. If you wanted more gold, then you worked harder or traded more. The concept of "investment", of putting your capital rather than yourself to work, was not really born yet. It was a different world.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In a similar fashion the concept of marriage has changed. If nothing else the Married Woman's Property Act makes it clear that marriage is an act regulated by the state. Modern marriage is an equal partnership without the need to provide children and is now going to include couples who can't necessarily procreate without assistance. So your dogma can magically transform to handle this changed fact or change in the same way the church dogma on usury has mutated.

The dogmas of the Church on marriage depend on the nature of human sexuality and the Divine commands concerning it. Neither of these have changed one bit, and so there is no reason to revise the dogmas. The state can declare all it wants, it has no power whatsoever over these matters. All it can do is to determine how it regulates its citizens, i.e., it can make rules about "civil marriage". And how appropriate these rules are can be judged by the Church, whether the state and its citizens care to listen or not.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apparently modernity can change the meaning of money just fine, but woe betide anyone suggesting that modernity has changed the meaning of marriage. And hey, 'interest' is a modern concept! Apparently when those old folks said don't make money out of lending, they had no idea about how you make money out of lending. The hypocrisy is rank.

The appropriate analogy would be money : usury :: human sexuality : marriage. Hence if human sexuality were to fundamentally change, then a like adaptation of marriage regulations would be on the cards. Since it hasn't, it isn't. As for the question of why medieval moneylending profits are not the same as modern capitalist interest, see above.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Um - in the UK there is no such thing as no fault divorce. The nearest that you get is an agreed divorce between the partners after 2 years living apart, otherwise the grounds are adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion (and 5 years living apart for a divorce not agreed by both partners). In the UK, as per Office of National Statistics figures for 2011 (the most recent I could find), is 42% of all marriages end in divorce.

How does that play with your assertion that no fault divorce has affected the way people go into marriages?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The appropriate analogy would be money : usury :: human sexuality : marriage. Hence if human sexuality were to fundamentally change, then a like adaptation of marriage regulations would be on the cards. Since it hasn't, it isn't.

Sorry, you don't think the very concept of homosexuality is a fundamental change??

[ 22. August 2013, 10:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Um - in the UK there is no such thing as no fault divorce. The nearest that you get is an agreed divorce between the partners after 2 years living apart, otherwise the grounds are adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion (and 5 years living apart for a divorce not agreed by both partners). In the UK, as per Office of National Statistics figures for 2011 (the most recent I could find), is 42% of all marriages end in divorce. How does that play with your assertion that no fault divorce has affected the way people go into marriages?

A comparative study to say the USA would be fascinating. I note from the more detailled stats that half of the divorces granted to men, and a bit less than a third to women, indeed relied on separation (thus the "nearest you can get" to a no fault divorce). I include in this the 5 year one, because the no fault divorce precisely does not care if one of the partners wishes the marriage to continue.

Was there a significant change of law at some point in the UK? If so, it would be instructive to see what happened to the stats there.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The appropriate analogy would be money : usury :: human sexuality : marriage. Hence if human sexuality were to fundamentally change, then a like adaptation of marriage regulations would be on the cards. Since it hasn't, it isn't.

Sorry, you don't think the very concept of homosexuality is a fundamental change??
Interesting point. It depends on whether you think that human sexuality itself has changed, or whether our sociological categorization of 'the homosexual' and 'the heterosexual' marks a new kind of approach (broadly speaking, the view of Foucault).

But even then, if you accept the view of 'the homosexual' as a new kind of category in human self-reflection, this might still have an impact on sexuality itself.

Of course, there is also the point that 'the homosexual' was initially tagged as bad, possibly mad, and sick. Hence the various models of sickness and cure, vis a vis homosexuality, which existed in the 20th century, e.g. in religion, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and medicine.

Arguably then, the Catholic Church is stuck in the past, but then maybe Ingo is pleased with that?

I know that psychoanalysis has gone through an upheaval over this, as initially it viewed gays and lesbians very negatively, and for example, refused to train them. But all this has changed or is changing. Religion always seems to be last in the line of rearguard defence of the immoral.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sorry, you don't think the very concept of homosexuality is a fundamental change??

Uhhm, no? I assume that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of mankind (or at least the since the fall, if you will...). The concept of homosexuality as a good thing may be new (or at least it may be history repeating after quite a hiatus). But that's a different issue: neither nature has changed, nor has a new fact about nature come to our attention, rather society has changed its moral evaluation of a well-known aspect of nature. The Church hasn't.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Rather than continuing this in Hell, I'll go start a Purgatory thread. Stop poor orfeo's eyes bleeding
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The appropriate analogy would be money : usury :: human sexuality : marriage. Hence if human sexuality were to fundamentally change, then a like adaptation of marriage regulations would be on the cards. Since it hasn't, it isn't.

Sorry, you don't think the very concept of homosexuality is a fundamental change??
Interesting point. It depends on whether you think that human sexuality itself has changed, or whether our sociological categorization of 'the homosexual' and 'the heterosexual' marks a new kind of approach (broadly speaking, the view of Foucault).

But even then, if you accept the view of 'the homosexual' as a new kind of category in human self-reflection, this might still have an impact on sexuality itself.

Of course, there is also the point that 'the homosexual' was initially tagged as bad, possibly mad, and sick. Hence the various models of sickness and cure, vis a vis homosexuality, which existed in the 20th century, e.g. in religion, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and medicine.

Arguably then, the Catholic Church is stuck in the past, but then maybe Ingo is pleased with that?

I know that psychoanalysis has gone through an upheaval over this, as initially it viewed gays and lesbians very negatively, and for example, refused to train them. But all this has changed or is changing. Religion always seems to be last in the line of rearguard defence of the immoral.

Yes. First of all, the whole concept of a 'homosexual' didn't exist until the last couple of centuries, or so I'm repeatedly told. Secondly, it's only within living memory that we've shifted from listing homosexuality as a mental disorder to regarding it as simply the way some people are born - even the RCC thinks this now.

I would have thought these were precisely the kinds of changes that Ingo was looking for. But no, that line of reasoning of course only applies after the fact to doctrinal changes he wishes to support. Again, just as with Mudfrog, it must be wonderful to be in the church when it is at its most perfect point in all history.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
nor has a new fact about nature come to our attention

Yes, it has. That people are born homosexual is a quite recent fact.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
nor has a new fact about nature come to our attention

Yes, it has. That people are born homosexual is a quite recent fact.
Yes. I suppose that Catholics must just say to gays and lesbians, 'that's tough that you are gay, and can't express it; never mind, pick up your cross'. Rough paraphrase. Why would anyone be a gay Christian, then?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here you haul out this scurrilous, false smear about sexually dissolute gay men.

False smear? Are you sure that you have read carefully what I wrote there? Because as Zach82 discovered to his discomfort, it is most likely true.

Perhaps you'll forgive me for not hanging on your every word. Where was this evidence you mount?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It just struck me that having worked in mental health for over 30 years, I have seen many struggles over the pathologization of gays and lesbians, in fact, they are still going on. See the absurd and dangerous practice of gay conversion therapy, which is thankfully now banned in all professional bodies in the UK (although still legal to practice). But in general, there has been a major shift away from the 'sickness and cure' paradigm.

But it's bizarre, embarrassing and risible to emerge from that pretty hot and heavy struggle, to find that the C of E and the Catholic Church maintain their institutional homophobia. Good grief. Well, not just grief, but bullying, suicide, mental health problems, attacks on gays and lesbians, and so on, flow from these reactionary positions. I feel like giving up really.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, not just grief, but bullying, suicide, mental health problems, attacks on gays and lesbians, and so on, flow from these reactionary positions.

Yes. I can't remember the figures, but not only are gay and lesbian youth at higher risk of suicide, but the risk is even greater if they are from a church background. I've occasionally heard the stories of those who tried to kill themselves because they were gay but lived to tell the tale. It's not pleasant. Not to mention the other mental health problems.

And please don't give up.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The worst thing I feel now is the actual disgust at the institutional homophobia found in the C of E and Catholic Church. It is now a visceral and physical disgust which I have. But I am hanging on, as you also find the opposite position, of course.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just struck me that having worked in mental health for over 30 years, I have seen many struggles over the pathologization of gays and lesbians, in fact, they are still going on. See the absurd and dangerous practice of gay conversion therapy, which is thankfully now banned in all professional bodies in the UK (although still legal to practice). But in general, there has been a major shift away from the 'sickness and cure' paradigm.

But what are you going to do, if you sincerely think homosexual practice is sinful? For such a Christian who is nevertheless atttracted to people of the same gender and therefore suffers from the temptation to sin (as they would presumably describe it), surely seeking a 'cure' (again, as they would presumably describe it) makes sense?

Of course, an alternative working out of such a situation is for the Christian with homosexual inclination to change their mind either about Christianity as a whole or about the sinfulness of gay sex. But the 'sickness and cure' paradigm makes sense, ISTM, within a certain framework of belief (granted that it can easily lead to the kind of trauma and tragedy that folks upthread have outlined).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I would just say that the sickness and cure paradigm is itself traumatic, and causes trauma. It instantly pathologizes someone, and offers them a pseudo-cure. No serious counsellor or therapist would offer gay conversion, as it is basically unprofessional.

As to people who are gay and believe that gay sex is sinful - I feel sorry for them, as they are torturing themselves. Yes, they should either give up Christianity, or the tag of pathology. But I know this is difficult - internalized homophobia is quite common in gays and lesbians.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
South Coast Kevin - turn that argument upside-down. If the churches / religions did not preach against homosexuality there would not have been the need for pathologisation. And there wouldn't be this need to "cure" homosexuality. It is no wonder why so many people are against religion / Christianity / churches and so supportive of Dawkins for being seen to challenge religion.

Most churches have moved on from the silencing of women in church and slavery. Many of us now think that the attitudes to homosexuality are equally dead.

And quetzalcoatl, the homosexuality debate is one of the things that made me decide to stop being a member of a church, any church.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just struck me that having worked in mental health for over 30 years, I have seen many struggles over the pathologization of gays and lesbians, in fact, they are still going on. See the absurd and dangerous practice of gay conversion therapy, which is thankfully now banned in all professional bodies in the UK (although still legal to practice). But in general, there has been a major shift away from the 'sickness and cure' paradigm.

But what are you going to do, if you sincerely think homosexual practice is sinful? For such a Christian who is nevertheless atttracted to people of the same gender and therefore suffers from the temptation to sin (as they would presumably describe it), surely seeking a 'cure' (again, as they would presumably describe it) makes sense?

Of course, an alternative working out of such a situation is for the Christian with homosexual inclination to change their mind either about Christianity as a whole or about the sinfulness of gay sex. But the 'sickness and cure' paradigm makes sense, ISTM, within a certain framework of belief (granted that it can easily lead to the kind of trauma and tragedy that folks upthread have outlined).

It's precisely the trauma and tragedy that the paradigm creates that eventually led me to think that perhaps the paradigm was the problem. And one of the reasons that the 'sickness and cure' paradigm makes no sense is that the 'cure' rate is abysmal. When thousands of people try to get 'cured' and then are in even more mental agony wondering what is so wrong with them that they can't get 'cured', it's time to consider that maybe it's because they were never 'sick' to begin with.

It's the insistence of holding onto the paradigm in the face of all the evidence that the paradigm doesn't work that is so frustrating. The medical profession got it - just the other day I saw a statement from the time when homosexuality stopped being considered a pathology. The REASON it stopped being considered a pathology was that there were lots of 'cases' which showed no other signs of impaired function other than the supposed impairment of being homosexual. Lots of people who were otherwise mentally well-adjusted and happy.

My own mental health is not robust, but coming out did wonders for my mental health. I hadn't realised just how damaging it was to keep my sexuality as a shameful secret until I stopped doing it. Until I stopped thinking of myself as needing a 'cure' - and I'd been looking for a cure for just over a decade, and I'd been worried about my 'health' for quite a few years before that.

Letting go of the belief that homosexual practice is sinful is one of the best things this homosexual ever did. Of course, I didn't do it until God basically insisted that I listen to him, but try telling a conservative homophobe that God sent a word of knowledge when I wavered. The idea that God told me to come out just doesn't fit in the 'paradigm'.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My own mental health is not robust, but coming out did wonders for my mental health. I hadn't realised just how damaging it was to keep my sexuality as a shameful secret until I stopped doing it. Until I stopped thinking of myself as needing a 'cure' - and I'd been looking for a cure for just over a decade, and I'd been worried about my 'health' for quite a few years before that.

Letting go of the belief that homosexual practice is sinful is one of the best things this homosexual ever did. Of course, I didn't do it until God basically insisted that I listen to him, but try telling a conservative homophobe that God sent a word of knowledge when I wavered. The idea that God told me to come out just doesn't fit in the 'paradigm'.

Thanks orfeo, that makes for powerful reading... The idea of God telling a gay person to come out, yes I'm sure there are plenty of people with whom that won't sit comfortably!

And cheers everyone else for your measured replies too. I clicked 'Add reply' with some trepidation, wondering what reaction I'd get... Glad I've not been dogpiled! [Smile]
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...You stored your gold in a treasure chest, you did not put it into a bank where you expected it to multiply as if by magic. If you wanted more gold, then you worked harder or traded more. The concept of "investment", of putting your capital rather than yourself to work, was not really born yet. It was a different world.

Strange then that Jesus referred to banking and interest in a parable, if his audience wouldn't have understood what that meant.

quote:

"Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest."


 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes. First of all, the whole concept of a 'homosexual' didn't exist until the last couple of centuries, or so I'm repeatedly told.

There is little doubt that a homosexual subculture existed in for example ancient Rome. There is not a one-to-one match with modern concerns and structures, but that is of course to a large degree because of the general condemnation of Christianity. Homosexuals became a more "unified" group to a large extent because they were condemned together. But that some people preferred their own sex was well known in ancient times already; and frankly it is hard to see how it could not have been known in places where there was considerable sexual openness. You can perhaps argue for the rise of a self-understanding as a specific "interest group" in modernity.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Secondly, it's only within living memory that we've shifted from listing homosexuality as a mental disorder to regarding it as simply the way some people are born - even the RCC thinks this now.

I do not understand the difference you wish to make between "mental disorder" and "the way some people are born"? Obviously one can be born with a mental disorder. And I have not heard of a scientific proof yet that homosexuality is a genetically determined characteristic? The RCC to the best of my knowledge has not issued an official statement on where homosexuality is coming from, just on how it is to be morally evaluated.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought these were precisely the kinds of changes that Ingo was looking for. But no, that line of reasoning of course only applies after the fact to doctrinal changes he wishes to support. Again, just as with Mudfrog, it must be wonderful to be in the church when it is at its most perfect point in all history.

Human sexuality has not changed. Homosexual acts are nothing new. The evaluation of some act as sin does not depend on whether the act was genetically predisposed or not, that merely changes the question of culpability. A stealing kleptomaniac still sins, but with reduced culpability for his sins. Furthermore, Christian regulations on sex do not consist in long lists of possible acts with different evaluations. Basically, one things is allowed, under one set of conditions. Therefore even if there was some fundamental variation in homosexuality, a claim that I reject, it would not really matter: it would still not be morally licit sex, but simply a different variety of illicit sex.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, it has. That people are born homosexual is a quite recent fact.

That is a fact now? Reference?

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes. I suppose that Catholics must just say to gays and lesbians, 'that's tough that you are gay, and can't express it; never mind, pick up your cross'. Rough paraphrase. Why would anyone be a gay Christian, then?

Why would anyone follow the Christian invitation to pick up their cross? Yet people do.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Perhaps you'll forgive me for not hanging on your every word. Where was this evidence you mount?

It's more a common sense thing, and before reply in haste, common sense enough for Zach82 to reluctantly agree. Try to read the actual claim carefully, and then tell me if you do not agree with it, too. For my claim to be wrong, the majority of gays would have to be rather different from the majority of heterosexuals concerning their marriage wishes - and different in the opposite way than you might expect. As for serious evidence, I'm afraid I do not know whether anyone is collecting stats on this.

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Strange then that Jesus referred to banking and interest in a parable, if his audience wouldn't have understood what that meant.
quote:
"Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest."


Interesting point, as far as ancient "banking" as such goes! Did the ancient Jews really have "banks" then, or is this a loose translation into a modern equivalent? However, the impact on the question of usury itself is provided by the verse just prior to the one you quoted: "You knew that I was a severe man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?"
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
orfeo

Great post above. I'm not gay, but it makes me sick at heart now, the homophobia in the churches. I've seen the damage done by it, working as a therapist.

And your point about 'cure' - yes, what misery lies in that concept, although the homophobes will tell you how joyful it is!

One guy who kept me sane was a gay rector who I knew well; but alas, he has retired to his cottage with his boy-friend! I bet he is well out of it.
 
Posted by Peter Ould (# 482) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
nor has a new fact about nature come to our attention

Yes, it has. That people are born homosexual is a quite recent fact.
That people are "born homosexual" is not in any sense a fact. Perhaps you would like to point us to the scientific paper which demonstrates this "fact"?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't know if orfeo is referring to research into epigenetic marks, which might regulate how a fetus responds to testosterone. I think this might explain why homosexuality partly runs in families. It is not a settled matter by any means, but ongoing research is, well, ongoing.

A scientific paper? Crumbs. They are mostly behind pay-walls, but this might be worth a butcher's.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167#abstract

[ 22. August 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes. I suppose that Catholics must just say to gays and lesbians, 'that's tough that you are gay, and can't express it; never mind, pick up your cross'. Rough paraphrase. Why would anyone be a gay Christian, then?

Why would anyone follow the Christian invitation to pick up their cross? Yet people do.
But why does the RCC give gay people heavier crosses than others?
 
Posted by Peter Ould (# 482) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know if orfeo is referring to research into epigenetic marks, which might regulate how a fetus responds to testosterone. I think this might explain why homosexuality partly runs in families. It is not a settled matter by any means, but ongoing research is, well, ongoing.

A scientific paper? Crumbs. They are mostly behind pay-walls, but this might be worth a butcher's.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167#abstract

Thanks - this paper is a classic example of what is *not* a proof that people are born gay. The paper recalls previous work in the area of epigenetics and then presents one potential model. But, and this is the huge but, it doesn't actually demonstrate whether that model is correct or not.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm sure that the word 'proof' was a slip there, as you must know that science does not deal in them. Logic and maths are the places for proofs.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Science doesn't "prove" "facts." You are wildly mistaken about what science actually does.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh Lord. Looked who the cat dragged in.
 
Posted by Peter Ould (# 482) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh Lord. Looked who the cat dragged in.

If that's aimed at me then it's nothing but an insult isn't it? Who was it aimed at?

[ 22. August 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: Peter Ould ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC to the best of my knowledge has not issued an official statement on where homosexuality is coming from, just on how it is to be morally evaluated.

There is approximately a 70% probability that you're the very person who provided me with a link to official RCC statements that said that homosexuality was innate. It was certainly someone on the Ship, and you're one of the few Shipmates who has a tendency to provide such links, and you post on this topic more than the others I have in mind.

Of course, those same statements did go on to say that the RCC does not think that people should act on those innate desires, but I'm surprised that this particular detail would have passed you by. It sure as hell didn't pass me by.

Wikipedia mentions a document from 1975 called Persona Humana that acknowledges at least some homosexuals are 'born that way', although I don't believe that's the document I've previously seen.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh Lord. Looked who the cat dragged in.

If that's aimed at me then it's nothing but an insult isn't it? Who was it aimed at?
Yes, it is nothing but an insult. Yes, it was aimed at you. Welcome to Hell. How nice of you to suddenly pop into the conversation at this particular moment after all these pages. Why am I not surprised.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
That people are "born homosexual" is not in any sense a fact. Perhaps you would like to point us to the scientific paper which demonstrates this "fact"?

A single scientific paper that demonstrates the fact of people being born gay?

I'll be right back. Along with the single scientific paper proving gravity.

Science is a process, not an answer. Especially not the type of answer to wave about on the internet and shout "Ta-da!"
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
So many scientifically literate people here! I like it! Oops, not really appropriate for hell, is it?

It's a fucking disgrace, that I haven't been aware of this before, and I want my money back.
 
Posted by Peter Ould (# 482) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh Lord. Looked who the cat dragged in.

If that's aimed at me then it's nothing but an insult isn't it? Who was it aimed at?
Yes, it is nothing but an insult. Yes, it was aimed at you. Welcome to Hell. How nice of you to suddenly pop into the conversation at this particular moment after all these pages. Why am I not surprised.
Why did I pop in? For the love and inclusivity.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There are a number of studies pointing to sexual orientation being at least partially genetically determined (a number of replicated twin studies and familial studies) and additional environmental considerations have been identified, particularly in utero hormonal exposure, which is suggested can androgenize the brain, but there's no one gene implicated.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
Why did I pop in? For the love and inclusivity.

I'm fresh out. Sorry. They don't give us much stock down here in this part of the Ship.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh Lord. Looked who the cat dragged in.

If that's aimed at me then it's nothing but an insult isn't it? Who was it aimed at?
Yes, it is nothing but an insult. Yes, it was aimed at you. Welcome to Hell. How nice of you to suddenly pop into the conversation at this particular moment after all these pages. Why am I not surprised.
Why did I pop in? For the love and inclusivity.
But you don't really believe that science proves things, do you? I thought that went out with stays.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There are a number of studies pointing to sexual orientation being at least partially genetically determined (a number of replicated twin studies and familial studies) and additional environmental considerations have been identified, particularly in utero hormonal exposure, which is suggested can androgenize the brain, but there's no one gene implicated.

There are many, many attributes of a person that they are born with that are not determined by a single gene. Even if it is 100% in utero conditions, that would still mean one is born with it. The claim is not that one is conceived with it. Maybe conservatives get this confused because they care far more about babies being conceived than born.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Because genetics and evolution is Science. And we all know that such talk is of the Devil!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Agreed mousethief. I thought about finding another human characteristic with similar profile but decided that I wasn't that keen to prove the point.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That's a very interesting point, though, that one can be born with something that one was not conceived with. It's kind of obvious, when you think about it, but still, it's kind of piquant.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Agreed mousethief. I thought about finding another human characteristic with similar profile but decided that I wasn't that keen to prove the point.

Try left-handedness. Also, of course, demonised for long periods of history partly based on the interpretation of certain Scriptures.

And there are 'scientific papers' that notice a correlation with homosexuality, actually. The papers fail to discuss whether this is due to left-handers being morally weak intrinsically or whether using the Devil's hand is one of the symptoms that comes about after a young child sins by having same-sex thoughts.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I was actually thinking of that loose genetic link with epigenetic influences underlying different human characteristics. I'm pretty sure something like body shape would fit there, but I'd have to find the research (famine has been known to switch on different genes in following generations).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
By the way, is Mr Ould post-gay, ex-gay, once-gay, twice-gay, or what?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
By the way, is Mr Ould post-gay, ex-gay, once-gay, twice-gay, or what?

I think he resists such categorisation. Let's just go with 'tedious'.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A scientific paper? Crumbs. They are mostly behind pay-walls, but this might be worth a butcher's. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167#abstract

I can look behind many academic paywalls. But anyway, the review they cite is more interesting than the paper itself, which is really just advancing an epigenetic hypothesis not ruled out by data, and also free: here: "Altogether, there is mounting evidence for a genetic role of human sexual orientation. The overwhelming dominance of heterosexual behavior in the animal kingdom points at a tight molecular regulation of this trait." Mind you, I'm never quite sure what the point is of bringing this up in moral discussions.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is approximately a 70% probability that you're the very person who provided me with a link to official RCC statements that said that homosexuality was innate.

I would be somewhat surprised if there was any statement that so clearly and definitely jumped the gun on science. An acknowledgment that homosexuality appears to be partly innate seems more likely. And yes, as you mention it wouldn't change much concerning the moral evaluation. Or at least not in the way that gay people would like to see it changed. A strong genetic component simply would make gays "morally handicapped" in the eyes of the Church.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you don't really believe that science proves things, do you? I thought that went out with stays.

Can we stop the Popperian nitpicking already? In practice certain things get "proven enough" in science to be taken for granted henceforth by basically all scientists in the field and simply will drop out of the list of potential research targets. That there is a theoretical possibility for them to get back on the lab table is then largely exactly that: a theoretical possibility, of interest at best to philosophers. Try getting a research grant aiming to disprove (there, I used the word) the atomic composition of matter, or that stars are distant suns, or that changing electrical fields induce magnetic ones, and see what I mean.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A strong genetic component simply would make gays "morally handicapped" in the eyes of the Church.

So what does the church advise handicapped people to do. Does it forbid them using mobility scooters? Does it forbid left-handed people to use their left hand? Blind people to get guide dogs? Hearing-impaired to get hearing aids?

Any I ask again: why are the crosses given to gays heavier than to straights?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So what does the church advise handicapped people to do. Does it forbid them using mobility scooters? Does it forbid left-handed people to use their left hand? Blind people to get guide dogs? Hearing-impaired to get hearing aids?

No, but the Church advises the kleptomaniac not to steal, the clinically depressed not to commit suicide, the pyromaniac not to set fire to things, the psychopath not to murder people, the zoophiliac not to practice bestiality, etc. And in each and every one of these cases she will continue doing so even if there is a genetic component that predisposes these people to commit their sinful acts.

Also, the obvious analogy to mobility scooters, hearing aids, etc. would be some medical device that suppresses homosexuality, thereby alleviating this "moral handicap" by technical means. I reckon that it is not the Church who would raise protest against applying such a device...

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Any I ask again: why are the crosses given to gays heavier than to straights?

Ask God. He distributes incredibly heavy crosses to some, and very light ones to others, and we generally have no idea why.
 
Posted by Peter Ould (# 482) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
By the way, is Mr Ould post-gay, ex-gay, once-gay, twice-gay, or what?

Who knows. Why don't you make it up and then demonize him for it?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Ould:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
By the way, is Mr Ould post-gay, ex-gay, once-gay, twice-gay, or what?

Who knows. Why don't you make it up and then demonize him for it?
Sorry, there's something good on telly.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Then the church would be utterly absurd.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

....
But it's bizarre, embarrassing and risible to emerge from that pretty hot and heavy struggle, to find that the C of E and the Catholic Church maintain their institutional homophobia. Good grief. Well, not just grief, but bullying, suicide, mental health problems, attacks on gays and lesbians, and so on, flow from these reactionary positions. I feel like giving up really.

Now is the time to continue pointing it out. With the clear gaze from the outside pointing it out either these Churches will cure themselves or wither into insignificance. Admittedly the Catholic Church runs about 200 years behind modernity but the Church of England is probably at the crisis point. The more secular life with tolerance proves that homosexuals are not evil or pathological or destructive to society, the more bizarre and medieval the pronouncements of these Churches appear.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It's precisely the trauma and tragedy that the paradigm creates that eventually led me to think that perhaps the paradigm was the problem. And one of the reasons that the 'sickness and cure' paradigm makes no sense is that the 'cure' rate is abysmal. When thousands of people try to get 'cured' and then are in even more mental agony wondering what is so wrong with them that they can't get 'cured', it's time to consider that maybe it's because they were never 'sick' to begin with.

It's the insistence of holding onto the paradigm in the face of all the evidence that the paradigm doesn't work that is so frustrating. The medical profession got it - just the other day I saw a statement from the time when homosexuality stopped being considered a pathology. The REASON it stopped being considered a pathology was that there were lots of 'cases' which showed no other signs of impaired function other than the supposed impairment of being homosexual. Lots of people who were otherwise mentally well-adjusted and happy.

My own mental health is not robust, but coming out did wonders for my mental health. I hadn't realised just how damaging it was to keep my sexuality as a shameful secret until I stopped doing it. Until I stopped thinking of myself as needing a 'cure' - and I'd been looking for a cure for just over a decade, and I'd been worried about my 'health' for quite a few years before that.

Letting go of the belief that homosexual practice is sinful is one of the best things this homosexual ever did. Of course, I didn't do it until God basically insisted that I listen to him, but try telling a conservative homophobe that God sent a word of knowledge when I wavered. The idea that God told me to come out just doesn't fit in the 'paradigm'. [/QB]

Eloquently put. My experience with coming out is similar, minus the God part. I found that life as a closeted homosexual wasn't worth living.

Having the paradigm change made my life much better and that of many other homosexuals I know. All the homosexuals I know who did not accept the paradigm change because of religion seem damaged.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Any I ask again: why are the crosses given to gays heavier than to straights?

Ask God. He distributes incredibly heavy crosses to some, and very light ones to others, and we generally have no idea why.
And it always comes down to this: it's not The Church crucifying gays, it's God:

Oh we don't hate gays - no, no, far from it - it's just that you're an abomination in the sight of God, you see. Terribly sorry, and all that, but can't be helped
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The fact of capitalism that interest is money works for you was pretty well understood by moneylenders and borrowers from a time well before the Usury prohibitions were promulgated by Christians. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any need for the rules. Nevertheless, the dogma changed, or the dogma magically meant something else when as you put it the concept of money changed.

Obviously moneylenders always understood that lending money is a way of making a profit. Usury prohibitions were saying that this profit is not just, because it was treating money in a way that was at odds with how everybody else was using money. In particular, regular business and work was not relying on money having a life on its own. You stored your gold in a treasure chest, you did not put it into a bank where you expected it to multiply as if by magic. If you wanted more gold, then you worked harder or traded more. The concept of "investment", of putting your capital rather than yourself to work, was not really born yet. It was a different world.
[/qb]

Nonsense. The concept of investing in a ship or trading caravan for profit was well understood probably back to the Neolithic period, certainly pre-Christ.

I must have missed the divine command that said that interest was ok. When did that happen? Or did the Church just adjust to realities of secular society? Saying "interest is bad" changing to "interest is ok" is directly derived from the eternal prescient unchanging dogmas of the church applied to the changing nature of money is a bullshit evasion.


quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In a similar fashion the concept of marriage has changed. If nothing else the Married Woman's Property Act makes it clear that marriage is an act regulated by the state. Modern marriage is an equal partnership without the need to provide children and is now going to include couples who can't necessarily procreate without assistance. So your dogma can magically transform to handle this changed fact or change in the same way the church dogma on usury has mutated.


quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

The dogmas of the Church on marriage depend on the nature of human sexuality and the Divine commands concerning it. Neither of these have changed one bit, and so there is no reason to revise the dogmas. The state can declare all it wants, it has no power whatsoever over these matters. All it can do is to determine how it regulates its citizens, i.e., it can make rules about "civil marriage". And how appropriate these rules are can be judged by the Church, whether the state and its citizens care to listen or not.

Homosexuality has changed. Ignoring French philosophers, it has been around in one form or another since before mankind crept out of the trees. It certainly existed in Greek and Roman times. However the big change since Christian Rome is that it's now legal in secular society. The state has authority over these matters and regulate its citizens. The church can decide what it wants to do, but like divorce in Europe, it can no longer can dominate civil society with its rules. If it wants to look foolish by publicly chastising all Protestant remarriages as adultery it can. If it wants to pretend civil gay marriages don't count, society is going to ignore it and it's inconsistent medieval theories. This is going to look increasingly silly. At some point some future apologist will talk about how sexuality changed and the dogma no longer means in practice what it not what it used to mean.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

But what are you going to do, if you sincerely think homosexual practice is sinful? For such a Christian who is nevertheless atttracted to people of the same gender and therefore suffers from the temptation to sin (as they would presumably describe it), surely seeking a 'cure' (again, as they would presumably describe it) makes sense?

Of course, an alternative working out of such a situation is for the Christian with homosexual inclination to change their mind either about Christianity as a whole or about the sinfulness of gay sex. But the 'sickness and cure' paradigm makes sense, ISTM, within a certain framework of belief (granted that it can easily lead to the kind of trauma and tragedy that folks upthread have outlined). [/QB]

What are you going to do if you think being born black is sinful. This was the case in a number of American churches. It's pretty clear that looking for a "cure" with skin bleach and hair straightener is going to lead to self hatred.

The fix is to cure your Christianity. Either drop it entirely or find a version that doesn't require you to cure who you are. This also applies to those who are not gay but merrily go around peddling cures which have been shown to be totally ineffective.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Any I ask again: why are the crosses given to gays heavier than to straights?

Ask God. He distributes incredibly heavy crosses to some, and very light ones to others, and we generally have no idea why.
And it always comes down to this: it's not The Church crucifying gays, it's God:

Oh we don't hate gays - no, no, far from it - it's just that you're an abomination in the sight of God, you see. Terribly sorry, and all that, but can't be helped

Yes and the weight of a y person's cross can be non-existent in a place where a homophobic church isn't allowed to run things. You might infer from this that the heavy cross is the church.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Perhaps you'll forgive me for not hanging on your every word. Where was this evidence you mount?

...Try to read the actual claim carefully...
I'm eager to read it carefully, but to do so I need a link to the post.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Nonsense. The concept of investing in a ship or trading caravan for profit was well understood probably back to the Neolithic period, certainly pre-Christ.

Yes, of course trade and investing into trade existed. But the idea that it is a natural function of money to be invested, that you are losing out if your money is merely stored away, that all money should beget more money, those are modern thoughts. They are capitalist attitudes, and capitalism really only took off in the late medieval / early modern period, through or after mercantilism.

If you are actually interested beyond the rhetorics of trying to find one breach of dogma to justify another one, then here is a brief summary of a Masters thesis dealing with what precisely the Church said when and why.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I must have missed the divine command that said that interest was ok. When did that happen? Or did the Church just adjust to realities of secular society? Saying "interest is bad" changing to "interest is ok" is directly derived from the eternal prescient unchanging dogmas of the church applied to the changing nature of money is a bullshit evasion.

The Church had always allowed "extrinsic titles" to provide a cost for a loan. If for example to get the money to me you need to hire a courier, then the cost for the courier could be charged to me. What did change in modern times was the realisation that commerce had restructured so that "opportunity cost" now was a common feature of all monetary dealings, money itself had received a universal price tag so that an "extrinsic title" was automatically given: if you just give me the money, then you are now losing out on the returns that the market is currently offering for investing that same money.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Homosexuality has changed. Ignoring French philosophers, it has been around in one form or another since before mankind crept out of the trees. It certainly existed in Greek and Roman times. However the big change since Christian Rome is that it's now legal in secular society.

So homosexuality has not changed at all. Rather, the attitude of society to homosexuality has changed. We are agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And it always comes down to this: it's not The Church crucifying gays, it's God: Oh we don't hate gays - no, no, far from it - it's just that you're an abomination in the sight of God, you see. Terribly sorry, and all that, but can't be helped

You seem to think that you have a point beyond the rhetorical flourishes. Is it then not possible in your opinion that some people are more prone to sin than others? That some people have a heavier cross to bear than others? That God's demands on us can mean real hardships for us? And what would you have those do who honestly think that homosexual acts are sinful in God's eyes? Simply be quiet about it? Then does that same principle apply to all other sinful acts? Is it the Christian duty to let the world pass by as it may be, leaving all sinners to their devices?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
"The heavy cross is the church", (Palimpsest). Phew. Gulp. As Gary Snyder said, 'cool swimming down with me watching'.

[ 22. August 2013, 23:47: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But the idea that it is a natural function of money to be invested, that you are losing out if your money is merely stored away, that all money should beget more money, those are modern thoughts.

Exactly as modern as the parable of the talents in the Gospels.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Also, the obvious analogy to mobility scooters, hearing aids, etc. would be some medical device that suppresses homosexuality, thereby alleviating this "moral handicap" by technical means. I reckon that it is not the Church who would raise protest against applying such a device...

No, the RCC doesn't protest nearly enough about applying nasty devices to people. Especially when it is the applicator.

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Any I ask again: why are the crosses given to gays heavier than to straights?

Ask God. He distributes incredibly heavy crosses to some, and very light ones to others, and we generally have no idea why.
And it always comes down to this: it's not The Church crucifying gays, it's God:

Oh we don't hate gays - no, no, far from it - it's just that you're an abomination in the sight of God, you see. Terribly sorry, and all that, but can't be helped

Plus it's easy when you're married (and having sex with whatever regularity you and your spouse have agreed to) to be glib about the enormous (enormitous?) cross that your church assigns to gays. "Hahaha, sucks to be you. Some people get heavy crosses, guess you drew a loser ticket in the cross weight derby. Suckeeerrrrrrrrrr."
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
As this threads grows and grows, so does my curiosity. It’s fairly clear that the bulk of posters here are arguing for both civil and religious acceptance of human homosexuality as a normal, if minority, orientation and set of activities, together with detours into what marriage is, or isn’t, and who and what it’s for, along with sidetrips into usury and the Inquisition and the nature – however perfected or corrupt – of various Christian organizational expressions of faith.

This is an understandable human goal: people who have been marginalized, discriminated against, oppressed, even slaughtered for being what they are have sought acceptance throughout human history, and the arc of history, as someone wiser and more eloquent than I am once observed, bends toward justice.

It’s also clear that IngoB, with a few others, will not be moved. Not for any reason or unreason, and certainly not for the sake of granting space or peace or respect or fellow-feeling among Shipmates.

Why, then – the decision having been made and apparently unalterable – do you, IngoB, continue to engage here on this thread? What exactly is your aim? You’ve made your position clear, along with its immutability, and yet here you are. One might almost wonder if somewhere inside that elaborate and enormous conceptual edifice of yours, of Truth Eternal, a lone mouse of doubt nibbles the wainscoting.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Nonsense. The concept of investing in a ship or trading caravan for profit was well understood probably back to the Neolithic period, certainly pre-Christ.

Yes, of course trade and investing into trade existed. But the idea that it is a natural function of money to be invested, that you are losing out if your money is merely stored away, that all money should beget more money, those are modern thoughts. They are capitalist attitudes, and capitalism really only took off in the late medieval / early modern period, through or after mercantilism.

If you are actually interested beyond the rhetorics of trying to find one breach of dogma to justify another one, then here is a brief summary of a Masters thesis dealing with what precisely the Church said when and why.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I must have missed the divine command that said that interest was ok. When did that happen? Or did the Church just adjust to realities of secular society? Saying "interest is bad" changing to "interest is ok" is directly derived from the eternal prescient unchanging dogmas of the church applied to the changing nature of money is a bullshit evasion.

The Church had always allowed "extrinsic titles" to provide a cost for a loan. If for example to get the money to me you need to hire a courier, then the cost for the courier could be charged to me. What did change in modern times was the realisation that commerce had restructured so that "opportunity cost" now was a common feature of all monetary dealings, money itself had received a universal price tag so that an "extrinsic title" was automatically given: if you just give me the money, then you are now losing out on the returns that the market is currently offering for investing that same money.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Homosexuality has changed. Ignoring French philosophers, it has been around in one form or another since before mankind crept out of the trees. It certainly existed in Greek and Roman times. However the big change since Christian Rome is that it's now legal in secular society.

So homosexuality has not changed at all. Rather, the attitude of society to homosexuality has changed. We are agreed.

The conceit that the risks of global trade that sent huge volumes of gold to India was financed with money that could have safely been buried under the mattress by people with no concept of risk and opportunity cost is of course nonsense.

The moneychangers in the temple were not charitable altruists, they expected to profit from arbitrage and opportunity costs. What changed was secular society attitude toward interest. And the dogma magically now meant loan costs with interest when it explicitly didn't before. The summary you cited claims the same rhetorical dance you do and it's as unimpressive as your rhetorical spins. I half expect you to say the Church opposed interest but it didn't say compound interest was bad.

I didn't say homosexuality hadn't changed. It had changed in a number of ways. However the salient change for the purposes of revaluating your dogma is that it's now legal to be a homosexual and and in many places civil partnership and civil marriage are or will be legal.
Like divorce, the Church will have to come to an accommodation with civil society.
You can see this in the Pope Francis statement as Cardinal when opposing gay marriage in Argentina that supported civil unions even though he seems to no longer have that opinion now that he's Pope.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm eager to read it carefully, but to do so I need a link to the post.

Uhh, I'm talking about the very paragraph that you've commented on with "Fuck you." and quoted more than once. It actually says that most gays are unlikely to want what the RCC considers as a proper marriage. That's not actually a particularly contentious claim, given that most heterosexuals in the West don't want that either (and one can be quite cynical about how many RC heterosexuals want it, even if they formally sign up for it).

The actual point I was making was not that all gays fuck around like crazy, or some such. The actual point I was making was that the same word "marriage" hides that there is not simply one divide between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage, but rather that gay marriage, civil heterosexual marriage and RC marriage are all divided against each other. Hence if gays demand marriage for themselves one has to ask which of these gaps they are trying to close, and in my opinion it is not primarily the gap to RC marriage, but to civil heterosexual marriage. Hence gays and RCC shouting at each other over marriage are doing something more complicated than simply fighting over their differences.

Admittedly, the paragraph was short and offensively worded (offensive more directly concerning civil marriage), but this is Hell and that is what I was actually thinking about.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Why, then – the decision having been made and apparently unalterable – do you, IngoB, continue to engage here on this thread? What exactly is your aim? You’ve made your position clear, along with its immutability, and yet here you are. One might almost wonder if somewhere inside that elaborate and enormous conceptual edifice of yours, of Truth Eternal, a lone mouse of doubt nibbles the wainscoting.

First, I actually enjoy arguing for arguing's sake. To some extent that doesn't even depend on content. I could certainly have fun arguing for gay marriage, for example. But given that this place is heavily biased against most things I consider true, I can get sufficient mileage out of sticking to my opinions. Second, it is actually difficult to think through doctrines and their interpretation on your own. Basically, if you try to come up both with the questions and the answers, you tend to be myopic and narrow in what you think about. It easily becomes an exercise in clapping yourself on the back for a job well done, when you haven't done anything much. If instead you throw this out here, then you will get all sorts questions and comments back, from the abysmally stupid to the dangerously brilliant, lots of stuff you would never have thought about, or at least would never have considered as important. Trying to answer all that is a much better way of thinking through things. Third, of course my faith is not absolute. I do not consider it impossible that some "killer argument" one day will reset my religious trajectory. The chances are pretty damn minimal, but one never knows.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Ingo, your entire thesis on money is that church attitudes changed in response to changing secular attitudes. Your last long post on the subject positively shouts this out. And yet somehow you can't or won't see it. Either that, or you just won't apply the exact same line of reasoning to homosexuality until that moment when the church hierarchy does it for you, and then miraculously the same line of thinking WILL be okay for you because Someone Important gave you the signal.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, your entire thesis on money is that church attitudes changed in response to changing secular attitudes. Your last long post on the subject positively shouts this out. And yet somehow you can't or won't see it. Either that, or you just won't apply the exact same line of reasoning to homosexuality until that moment when the church hierarchy does it for you, and then miraculously the same line of thinking WILL be okay for you because Someone Important gave you the signal.

Yes. It will probably be that the dogma is all against Sodomites, but Homosexuals are ok... :-)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Frankly, to do that he could just take the line taken by many Christians, including myself, who view the Bible seriously. (To come back to Mudfrog briefly, the whole 'oh you're ignoring the Bible' accusation really gives me the shits.) Lots of people view the 'clobber' verses in the Bible as being directed at quite specific practices, including ritual homosexual orgies in other religions.

There is absolutely no conceptual difference between saying that interest per se isn't wrong, only particular forms of unjust usury, and that homosexual sex per se isn't wrong, only particular forms of homosexual sex (and no doubt equivalent forms of heterosexual sex would come in for criticism as well - in fact, they do).

As I've said, the whole 'you can only get there by ignoring the Bible' accusation, aka 'that's not a legitimate interpretation of the Bible', really angers me, not least because it is usually provided by people who use the exact same methods of interpretation on other topics. My usual test is to see what they say about women wearing hats in church, but I'll happily add usury to the list. There ARE people out there who believe that women must wear hats in church in the 21st century despite the cultural meaning being nothing like it was in 1st century Corinth, but they're pretty rare. I respect such people. At least they're consistent, even if I think they're wrong.

And here's the thing, I actually respect some people who believe homosexual sex is wrong. Tony Campolo is a standout example, as he'll actually speak about his reasoning process, and go on speaking engagements with this wife who arrived at the opposite conclusion. I respect him because he acknowledges it's not an open-and-shut case and that are interpretative debates to be had, and because his stance is not knee-jerk. He's carefully considered it. He actually agrees that several of the 'clobber verses' do NOT speak to homosexual sex generally. But there is at least one that he think does cover all homosexual sex.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, to do that he could just take the line taken by many Christians, including myself, who view the Bible seriously. (To come back to Mudfrog briefly, the whole 'oh you're ignoring the Bible' accusation really gives me the shits.) Lots of people view the 'clobber' verses in the Bible as being directed at quite specific practices, including ritual homosexual orgies in other religions.

As I've said, the whole 'you can only get there by ignoring the Bible' accusation, aka 'that's not a legitimate interpretation of the Bible', really angers me, not least because it is usually provided by people who use the exact same methods of interpretation on other topics. My usual test is to see what they say about women wearing hats in

It always amuses me to have these bible literalists sit there clean shaven, munching a bacon cheeseburger, probably uncircumcised and citing verses in Leviticus.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It always amuses me to have these bible literalists sit there clean shaven, munching a bacon cheeseburger, probably uncircumcised and citing verses in Leviticus.

Exactly!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, I actually enjoy arguing for arguing's sake. To some extent that doesn't even depend on content.

So do I - and I can't begin to argue as well as you do. My happiest memories are arguing with my dad round the dinner table about all sorts of topics.

But why do you feel such a strong need to toe the party line. Why not think it through, come to your own conclusions and then argue for them?

Accepting other's ideas then constructing marvellous logical arguments for them is a safe cop out imo, however eloquently done.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
IngoB. That's better. The last two entries.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
IngoB:

Following your assertions about Christian marriage, we've started discussing changes in marriage over here, but the general consensus seems to be that the image of Christian marriage you're portraying wasn't destroyed by legal changes, but by society refusing to force couples to remain in so-called Christian marriages.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, your entire thesis on money is that church attitudes changed in response to changing secular attitudes. Your last long post on the subject positively shouts this out. And yet somehow you can't or won't see it. Either that, or you just won't apply the exact same line of reasoning to homosexuality until that moment when the church hierarchy does it for you, and then miraculously the same line of thinking WILL be okay for you because Someone Important gave you the signal.

But money has no nature other than what we attribute to it. What is a gold coin? Nothing, actually. It's a piece of metal. Well, as a piece of metal there is actually a value to it, but hardly the value we attribute to it. Yet we have progressed far beyond this now, to the point where most of the money that you have presumably comes in the form of some bytes stored on the hard disk of some bank. What those numbers mean is almost entirely in our heads. Of course, they represent real things - labour, trade, ... but the manner in which they do is entirely a social convention. Is a US dollar worth more than a Pound Sterling? Maybe yes, maybe no, but you sure cannot tell simply from what either one of them is. You need to ask what we, our markets, currently do with that currency.

Money is a social convention. It has the nature of an artefact, it is man-made, and in some sense more man-made than most artefacts because there is little to it that is not social convention. A car is what it is because we made it to be that way, but it still is a ton of metal. Money is a lot less tangible. It will be what we make it out to be.

What I've been arguing is exactly that social conventions on money changed. And so what once was just - to condemn the interest-taking of the ancient moneylender (note: nobody says that they did not take interest, "usury" is originally simply a word for interest-taking!) - now had become acceptable in terms of the "new money" that had developed with capitalism. By the same line of thought, if you can argue that money has changed again (to some "post-capitalist" structure), then the question of usury can be back on the table.

The difference to homosexuality is simply that human nature has not changed at all. Homosexuality is not a social construct, a man-made artefact. Of course, there are social structures built around homosexuality, and they may well change. But they do not change the underlying nature of human beings.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But why do you feel such a strong need to toe the party line. Why not think it through, come to your own conclusions and then argue for them? Accepting other's ideas then constructing marvellous logical arguments for them is a safe cop out imo, however eloquently done.

I find the idea highly amusing that thinking through things and coming to your own conclusions must mean disagreeing with whatever the official or authoritative view is.

I'm a scientist. What did it mean if I thought things through and came to my own conclusion, and they disagreed with the official or authoritative view? Well, roughly till the end of the Masters it simply meant that I was wrong. It was often highly instructive to find out how I went wrong, of course, but wrong I nevertheless was. Why was that so? Well, because the authorities and officials in physics really know their shit. They are no fools. You are the fool. And you are working damn hard to become less of a fool. Roughly towards the end of the Masters you come to the point where your thinking things through and coming to your own conclusions starts to mean something beyond you having to correct yourself. But basically so because you have reached the edges of authoritative and official claims. (Of course, people have these romantic view of science as continuous revolution, as if discovering quantum mechanics was the day job of scientists. It's a truckload of bollocks, even concerning how quantum mechanics actually was discovered. But anyhow...)

Now, you can pretty much sum up my faith as saying that the Church knows her shit. In a sense that's more foundational than what I may think about Christ, for example, because what I think about Christ comes to me through the Church. The Church does not know her shit in the sense that every single word dripping from her official's mouths is a gold nugget of conceptual and spiritual insight. But then scientists do not know their shit in that sense either. Also by "Church" I do not here simply mean the hierarchy. I include everybody, in particular also the saints and the theologians. There's an entire army of spiritual and intellectual greatness marching through history to the beat of a drum that started rolling when the Lord Himself walked the earth two millennia ago. And here I stand and can do no other than disagree and congratulate myself on independent thinking? Well no, I can do other. I can join the rank and file of that army and see if I can keep up. I can assume that there is something greater than I in matters of religion, and that in case of conflict it is likely me who has gotten it wrong. And if I feel antsy about adding my own tuppence, then I can work my butt off to reach the borders of authoritative and official understanding. That's where my opinion might become more than a fool shooting his mouth off.

That's how I see matters. You think I'm an unthinking drone. Well, I think you are like the fellow who once visited me in my office to explain how he was measuring gravity waves in his bathtub. There was lots of independent, creative thinking about physics there. It was also tragicomically wrong. The pursuit of truth requires more than that.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, your entire thesis on money is that church attitudes changed in response to changing secular attitudes. Your last long post on the subject positively shouts this out. And yet somehow you can't or won't see it. Either that, or you just won't apply the exact same line of reasoning to homosexuality until that moment when the church hierarchy does it for you, and then miraculously the same line of thinking WILL be okay for you because Someone Important gave you the signal.

But money has no nature other than what we attribute to it. What is a gold coin? Nothing, actually. It's a piece of metal. Well, as a piece of metal there is actually a value to it, but hardly the value we attribute to it. Yet we have progressed far beyond this now, to the point where most of the money that you have presumably comes in the form of some bytes stored on the hard disk of some bank. What those numbers mean is almost entirely in our heads. Of course, they represent real things - labour, trade, ... but the manner in which they do is entirely a social convention. Is a US dollar worth more than a Pound Sterling? Maybe yes, maybe no, but you sure cannot tell simply from what either one of them is. You need to ask what we, our markets, currently do with that currency.

Money is a social convention. It has the nature of an artefact, it is man-made, and in some sense more man-made than most artefacts because there is little to it that is not social convention. A car is what it is because we made it to be that way, but it still is a ton of metal. Money is a lot less tangible. It will be what we make it out to be.

What I've been arguing is exactly that social conventions on money changed. And so what once was just - to condemn the interest-taking of the ancient moneylender (note: nobody says that they did not take interest, "usury" is originally simply a word for interest-taking!) - now had become acceptable in terms of the "new money" that had developed with capitalism. By the same line of thought, if you can argue that money has changed again (to some "post-capitalist" structure), then the question of usury can be back on the table.

The difference to homosexuality is simply that human nature has not changed at all. Homosexuality is not a social construct, a man-made artefact. Of course, there are social structures built around homosexuality, and they may well change. But they do not change the underlying nature of human beings.

Nice try. However, the 'money is a social construct' line manages to miss that the issue isn't simply about money, it's about how people treat each other. It's about fairness and justice. It's about the fact that some people don't appear to inherently have a moral problem with trying to take advantage of their fellow human beings. It's every bit as much about human nature as homosexuality is, and your dividing line between the two is highly artificial.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

I'm a scientist. What did it mean if I thought things through and came to my own conclusion, and they disagreed with the official or authoritative view? Well, roughly till the end of the Masters it simply meant that I was wrong. It was often highly instructive to find out how I went wrong, of course, but wrong I nevertheless was. Why was that so? Well, because the authorities and officials in physics really know their shit. They are no fools. You are the fool.

'Knowing your shit' is not the aim in matters of faith. Learning to love God and others is.

Jesus always preferred the loving fool to the all-knowing cold hearted scholar, as far as I can see.

Of course, using wisdom in how you practice and show your love is very important. But wisdom and knowledge are often found far apart from each other.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
In fact, knowledge is overpowered by love, at times, isn't it? I can see that there are dangers in this, that for example, one might become sentimental. But there sure are great dangers in allowing love to be overpowered by knowledge!
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
'Knowing your shit' is not the aim in matters of faith. Learning to love God and others is. Jesus always preferred the loving fool to the all-knowing cold hearted scholar, as far as I can see.

Wonderful. But not at all what we were talking about. You asked "But why do you feel such a strong need to toe the party line. Why not think it through, come to your own conclusions and then argue for them? " and I answered. I might as well ask you why you are not trying to learn to love God and others instead of thinking things through and coming to your own conclusions. At which point you would be entirely justified to reply that one does not exclude the other, and that I've just evasively changed the topic. And that's just what you have done here.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
'Knowing your shit' is not the aim in matters of faith. Learning to love God and others is. Jesus always preferred the loving fool to the all-knowing cold hearted scholar, as far as I can see.

Wonderful. But not at all what we were talking about. You asked "But why do you feel such a strong need to toe the party line. Why not think it through, come to your own conclusions and then argue for them? " and I answered. I might as well ask you why you are not trying to learn to love God and others instead of thinking things through and coming to your own conclusions. At which point you would be entirely justified to reply that one does not exclude the other, and that I've just evasively changed the topic. And that's just what you have done here.
Except that the one HAS excluded the other when you come to such hugely unloving and unChristlike conclusions.

Which is what this discussion is all about.

Including lesbian and gay people has to be seen first in the terms of love and wisdom, then the intellectual conclusions can follow.

[ 23. August 2013, 11:50: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But sexuality - not just homosexuality - has traditionally been seen in Christianity in moral terms.

But once you start to get a divergence between civil society and its mores, and the traditional morality of Christianity, you start to get these problems. Civil society no longer punishes gays, but some Christians still want to describe them (or gay sex, at any rate), as wrong, immoral, disordered, and so on.

But in a sense, they are on the backfoot, since we don't live in a theocratic society, or even one, dominated by religious views - I mean the UK here, possibly the US is so dominated, I'm not sure.

I suppose liberal Christians can be partly described as accepting some of the mores of civil society.

Actually, I should correct the above, since you could well conclude that the divergence is not a problem at all!

[ 23. August 2013, 12:06: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Except that the one HAS excluded the other when you come to such hugely unloving and unChristlike conclusions.

Yet I do not at all agree with the judgement that my position is "hugely unloving and unChristlike". I think it is following the will of Christ closely, and it is loving in the "tough love" sense that all sin demands. I think that you are essentially shirking your Christian duty to admonish the sinners, denying the Cross as a feature of life and allowing yourself to be misled by false sentimentality and cowardice in the face of suffering. And ultimately your actions could contribute to the loss of souls to eternal damnation, something that will put millstones around your neck. Now, I don't spend a huge amount of time telling this to you, and others like you. But just because you feel free to endlessly go on about my fundamental badness, and I do not reciprocate much, does not mean that I accept your bad judgement or that I have none of my own. Rather, I simply see no gain in exchanging such judgements. It does not advance the discussion, and quite frankly, is rather tedious.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Except that the one HAS excluded the other when you come to such hugely unloving and unChristlike conclusions.

Yet I do not at all agree with the judgement that my position is "hugely unloving and unChristlike". I think it is following the will of Christ closely, and it is loving in the "tough love" sense that all sin demands. I think that you are essentially shirking your Christian duty to admonish the sinners, denying the Cross as a feature of life and allowing yourself to be misled by false sentimentality and cowardice in the face of suffering. And ultimately your actions could contribute to the loss of souls to eternal damnation, something that will put millstones around your neck. Now, I don't spend a huge amount of time telling this to you, and others like you. But just because you feel free to endlessly go on about my fundamental badness, and I do not reciprocate much, does not mean that I accept your bad judgement or that I have none of my own. Rather, I simply see no gain in exchanging such judgements. It does not advance the discussion, and quite frankly, is rather tedious.
But this touches upon what I said earlier, about the complete failure of the 'homosexuality is a sin' paradigm. There are plenty of other 'sins' where admonishing people and giving tough love can lead to repentance and reform and people turning their life around. The same approach to homosexuality doesn't produce such results (despite what Peter Ould would pop out of the woodwork to have us believe). The world is littered with scarred Christian homosexuals who tried their darndest to repent and reform and just couldn't. It's also littered with their corpses.

The paradigm is wrong. The evidence is there in the fruit of applying the paradigm. It doesn't work. It doesn't fit with the reality of this aspect of human nature. Your own church is, in my opinion, working through some of the terrible debris of people running to the priesthood in a desperate attempt to 'solve' their sexuality by completely denying it. That's just ONE of the disastrous consequences of the methodology you're advocating. And yet you and your church still want to stick with an approach that isn't working.

The Bible itself touches upon these kinds of things. It should surely be evident that an approach that ISN'T leading people to walk closer with God isn't the approach that God intended. Admittedly it took me about 17 years to realise this, I'm just trying to save you some time here.

[ 23. August 2013, 13:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yet I do not at all agree with the judgement that my position is "hugely unloving and unChristlike". I think it is following the will of Christ closely, and it is loving in the "tough love" sense that all sin demands.

There is tough love - which I agree works in the right context. I am a parent and school teacher and certainly know the meaning of tough love.

Then there is asking the impossible. You couldn't become homosexual however much you repented of your heterosexuality.

Some people have to live with incredibly challenging disabilities and some have to deny their desires because they are harmful to others.

Homosexuality is neither of these. It is harmless and carries no sin. Gay and lesbian people can be sinful, of course, just as heterosexual people can be sinful.

But loving someone of the same sex is simply that. No better, no worse than loving someone of a different sex.

The time will come when this is accepted as widely in the Church as it is in society. I just wish it would hasten as, currently, I am pretty ashamed of the way us heteros have swept the matter under the carpet. Especially in our Churches.

[ 23. August 2013, 14:20: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But this touches upon what I said earlier, about the complete failure of the 'homosexuality is a sin' paradigm. There are plenty of other 'sins' where admonishing people and giving tough love can lead to repentance and reform and people turning their life around. The same approach to homosexuality doesn't produce such results (despite what Peter Ould would pop out of the woodwork to have us believe). The world is littered with scarred Christian homosexuals who tried their darndest to repent and reform and just couldn't. It's also littered with their corpses.

All that needs to be said concerning this is that one can live one's life without having sex. Therefore it is feasible for people with homosexual attraction to avoid the sin of homosexual acts. Is that easy? No, for most people this will be hard. Will some of them hurt themselves or even kill themselves over this? Possibly. Is that a necessary consequence of denying one's sexual urges? No, it is not.

If you wish to make a case that homosexual attraction and consequently unwanted sexual abstinence is one of the heaviest crosses around, I'm listening. But it is simply not true that homosexual activity cannot be avoided, and hence cannot be a sin. Neither do I agree to the idea that expressing one's sexuality as one wishes is a basic human right, which hence must be granted to homosexuals as well. Demanding sexual abstinence is not a violation of human rights, and while it may be terribly tough, it is not impossible.

And yes, I fully realise that it is easy for me to talk given that I can realise my own sexual urges. Well, in a rather restricted manner including quite a bit of abstinence, but nevertheless. Yet that is simply not an argument against me commenting on this issue. The "revolutionary attack" approach is simply misplaced here, I'm not some kind of land owner sitting on sexual privilege stolen from the poor homosexuals and laughing at their plight. For better or worse, I actually do believe to defend God's decisions in this matter, and I do not find it a particularly joyful or inspiring experience to tell other people that what they consider as their happiness is a sin.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But it's not just that gays will hurt themselves or kill themselves over the absence of a sexual relationship; it's also that the policy of homophobia produces bullying, punishment, and killing of gays, inevitably.

As orfeo said, the results of a homophobic policy are disastrous and crippling to gay people. I can't in conscience support that.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
And yet, it is apparent that you enjoy being a miserable prig.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This is the last post I'm going to put on this thread. I see little point in wasting any more time.

IngoB - homosexuals do not need to abstain from sex for God to love. He accepts them just as they are. They can live, love and be married. Thank God they now don't need anyone's permission for this.

You are the one who needs to change perspective. Not gay people, lesbians or God.

You won't. But you should.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Some people have to live with incredibly challenging disabilities and some have to deny their desires because they are harmful to others. Homosexuality is neither of these. It is harmless and carries no sin.

Homosexuality is both of these. It is harmful and carries grave sin.

Now, obviously we disagree on this. But that's exactly why I do not go on about you being unloving and unChristlike (much). I don't think that you are that, at least not intentionally. I think you are mistaken on this point, and in consequence your love and your attempt to be like Christ is tragically misdirected. I am not so much upset with you but upset for you. It is, of course, likely that you are not without guilt for your mistake in this matter. But I do not usually feel that it is my duty to dig deep into the reasons for your mistake, and whether you are to blame for them. I simply hope that you are inculpable and that those reasons will disappear.

That's my normal attitude, at least until I've been told a gazillion times what a terrible being I am. That eventually tends to spill over into the above and make me think nasty thoughts in return. So if you ask me what I would like to happen in the judgement of me, in your judgement, then it would be that I'm getting downgraded from the personification of evil to tragically wrong. Because whatever else can be said about me, and I'm sure I fail all sorts of criteria for being a decent human being, it is simply not true that I bear particular malice towards homosexuals.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Some people have to live with incredibly challenging disabilities and some have to deny their desires because they are harmful to others. Homosexuality is neither of these. It is harmless and carries no sin.

Homosexuality is both of these. It is harmful and carries grave sin.
The 'grave sin' part of this is a matter of theological / biblical interpretation, but for the 'harmful' part I think it's reasonable to expect there to be some evidence.

Also, I think it's fair to narrow the question down to homosexual sex within a lifelong monogamous relationship, seeing as that's what IngoB (and others, of course) say is the only God-approved context for heterosexual sex. So IngoB, what evidence is there that homosexual activity of this nature is harmful?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it's not just that gays will hurt themselves or kill themselves over the absence of a sexual relationship; it's also that the policy of homophobia produces bullying, punishment, and killing of gays, inevitably. As orfeo said, the results of a homophobic policy are disastrous and crippling to gay people. I can't in conscience support that.

What do you define here as a "policy of homophobia"? Who has such a policy and what does it decree?

In general terms, the above is a piece of consequentialist moral arguing. But I'm not a consequentialist: the end does not justify the means for me.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So IngoB, what evidence is there that homosexual activity of this nature is harmful?

Do you mean in a medical way? In a socio-economic way? I don't know if there are any stats on that. I think it will be difficult to disentangle possible negative effects of homosexuality itself from negative effects of society discriminating against homosexuality. However, given that discrimination against gays is reducing, we should be seeing an improvement in those stats. If they do not draw closer to heterosexual averages, then one can suspect that as direct effect of homosexuality.

Anyway, committing a grave sin is harmful to oneself and in this case also to the person one commits it with, at a minimum in the sense of being harmful to one's prospects of salvation. Hence while medical and socio-economic consequences of homosexuality are interesting, I don't think that they are required for my statement.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it's not just that gays will hurt themselves or kill themselves over the absence of a sexual relationship; it's also that the policy of homophobia produces bullying, punishment, and killing of gays, inevitably. As orfeo said, the results of a homophobic policy are disastrous and crippling to gay people. I can't in conscience support that.

What do you define here as a "policy of homophobia"? Who has such a policy and what does it decree?

In general terms, the above is a piece of consequentialist moral arguing. But I'm not a consequentialist: the end does not justify the means for me.

Cheers. One thing I do admire about you is your armouring, or whatever one calls it. It is very impressive, and kind of impermeable and I suppose of great value on internet forums. So kudos for that.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, committing a grave sin is harmful to oneself and in this case also to the person one commits it with, at a minimum in the sense of being harmful to one's prospects of salvation. Hence while medical and socio-economic consequences of homosexuality are interesting, I don't think that they are required for my statement.

I think they absolutely are required, unless you're content for your argument simply to rest on the theological point. In which case, your statements that homosexuality is harmful just seem like a tautology to me.

Good point though about distinguishing between harm caused by homosexual actions and by discrimination against homosexuals / homosexuality. That might well make rather fruitless the search for any evidence that homosexual actions are harmful.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think they absolutely are required, unless you're content for your argument simply to rest on the theological point. In which case, your statements that homosexuality is harmful just seem like a tautology to me.

Well, yes, but only because you already assume as given the Christian teaching that grave sins can lead to eternal damnation (and perhaps temporal punishment). In fact, the more optimistic sort of universalists might disagree, i.e., would not see the necessity for negative consequences from committing a grave sin.

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Good point though about distinguishing between harm caused by homosexual actions and by discrimination against homosexuals / homosexuality. That might well make rather fruitless the search for any evidence that homosexual actions are harmful.

Indeed, but as mentioned I think time will tell in this case. In a sense, our societies are running a gigantic experiment on this for us.
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Is the 'crypto-' in the thread title still needed?

[ 23. August 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Is the 'crypto-' in the thread title still needed?

The thread title must surely win an award for "Most Depressing, but Unintentionally Hilarious" porn movie ever made.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I'm getting sick of seeing this thread when I Iog on to the ship. I'm not particularly prudish about anglo-saxonisms. So it's not that. So what is it?

I think it's the obsequious crypto-sycophancy of Arethosemyfeet's revolting OP which is just so obviously an attempt to court approval with the "in-crowd" by being about as offensively "right on" as possible. Grow up.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm getting sick of seeing this thread when I Iog on to the ship. I'm not particularly prudish about anglo-saxonisms. So it's not that. So what is it?

I think it's the obsequious crypto-sycophancy of Arethosemyfeet's revolting OP which is just so obviously an attempt to court approval with the "in-crowd" by being about as offensively "right on" as possible. Grow up.

How dare a noob have beliefs that others already here share. From now on we shall only accept as members people with no beliefs in common with any identifiable group of shipmates. This will prevent assholes like Numpty from calling them sycophants when they dare to say things that other people might possible agree with.

Either that or your panties are in a bunch because he agrees with them and not you, and your hatefulness is being called on the rug.

"Grow up" indeed. Coprocranial asshole.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Your pleasure in being brown-nosed is obvious mousethief, but please do it via PM. There's a good chap. It's putting me off my dinner.

[ 23. August 2013, 19:43: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Who the hell is the "in crowd"? My opinions are my own, and if they happen to be shared by others that is nice, but not the point.

My OP was probably a little excessive but, as mentioned, I'd had enough of the homophobia locally and the bullshit posted on the ship just tipped the balance and I needed a good rant. Quite cathartic.

And mousethief, how long do you have to be here before you stop being a noob?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Because of course your preference in not seeing a thing is a priority over those of us who prefer seeing these discussions happen. That makes ever so much sense.
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
I don't think it was excessive, especially in view of the thread that followed.

[ 23. August 2013, 19:52: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And mousethief, how long do you have to be here before you stop being a noob?

I apologize. Since Nump-head was treating you like a noob, I foolishly assumed you were. I see now he's just treating you like an outsider.

Because of course if you agree with the "in crowd" (which he flatteringly thinks I'm in), you must be brown-nosing, and not (as you so foolishly assume (I am speaking foolishly, as Paul says)) merely expressing your own opinions because they are your opinions and you feel them strongly.

Perhaps Nump-for-brains is sad that he's not in the "in crowd" and despises anyone who agrees with any of "us" and so, like a monkey at the zoo, has to throw shit at them. I dunno. The last time he was this egregious he excused himself and took a self-imposed break from the ship. I wonder if that's where we're headed this time around?

----

ETA: Oh, and add my name to those who don't think your OP was excessive. That's what Hell is for.

ETTA: Oh, and Nump-nuts: go fuck yourself. There's a lad.

[ 23. August 2013, 20:26: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...From now on we shall only accept as members people with no beliefs in common with any identifiable group of shipmates. This will prevent assholes like Numpty from calling them sycophants when they dare to say things that other people might possible agree with.

Oh I fucking wish sunshine!

Step out of left-wing line round here and it's like being savaged by a dead sheep!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Step out of left-wing line round here and it's like being savaged by a dead sheep!

Shock! Horror! Followers of the guy who said "love of money is the root of all evil" think there might be a problem with a society devoted to the love of money. Who'da thunk it?!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Step out of left-wing line round here and it's like being savaged by a dead sheep!

Bet that really kills the mood for you. Might as well blow out the candles and pack up the wine.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
GO peanut gallery! I'm just itching for a good reason to run a rusty farm implement through this, and you're giving me such encouragement! Keep it up.

Sioni Sais, your friendly neighborhood host.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Who the hell is the "in crowd"? My opinions are my own, and if they happen to be shared by others that is nice, but not the point.

My OP was probably a little excessive but, as mentioned, I'd had enough of the homophobia locally and the bullshit posted on the ship just tipped the balance and I needed a good rant. Quite cathartic.

And mousethief, how long do you have to be here before you stop being a noob?

One thing I appreciated in your OP was your point about concern trolling, and I can see this in various veiled homophobes, who want to say that they are not homophobes. Rachel Held Evans has a post on her blog at the moment, with loads of people protesting that although they think gay sex is sinful, they are not homophobes, and positively love gays. Kind of like, 'I'm not a racist, but don't you think there are an awful lot of black people here now?'. I suppose they don't like being called homophobes because the truth hurts.

And blow me, if you don't still get that ghastly etymological crap, 'I'm not actually afraid of gays'. Fuck off with your etymological fellatio, or do I mean fallacy.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
All that needs to be said concerning this is that one can live one's life without having sex. Therefore it is feasible for people with homosexual attraction to avoid the sin of homosexual acts. Is that easy? No, for most people this will be hard. Will some of them hurt themselves or even kill themselves over this? Possibly. Is that a necessary consequence of denying one's sexual urges? No, it is not.

You, Sir, simply have no fucking idea what is encapsulated in this glib little paragraph. And you never can.

You haven't the faintest fucking clue what it's like, psychologically, to be told not only that you're not having sex right now, but that you never can. Ever. That it's morally wrong for you to have it. That it's morally wrong for you to want it. And it will be that way for the remaining 50, 60, 70 years of your life.

You have no conception of what it's like to be standing at a friend's wedding and having the realisation that this can never, ever be your fate, because no matter how much you try you don't like girls in that way, and you have enough integrity to know that marrying a girl you don't like in that way would be wrong and hurtful to her, and that liking boys in that way is also wrong and must never, ever be acted on.

And that it has nothing to do with your personal choice and commitment to celibacy.

Of course it bloody well leads to suicide, Ingo!! You're placing people in a permanent trap with no solution other than to end the trap. And all you offer is a glib little "well, people don't have to have sex". No, they don't, but you're not just taking away sex for a season, you're taking away sex for life. And you're not asking anyone. Putting aside what I think about the chastity required for priests and nuns, you're making it completely involuntary with no hope of parole.

If you think that's the same as telling a young man he has to wait until he's married, or telling a married man that he has to stick with one sexual partner, you are off your fucking rocker. It's not. One is a set of rules about how to express your sexuality, the other is a total denial that it can ever be expressed. A complete refusal to ever allow satisfaction of the desire to hold someone in your arms and to be held.

Every time you come up with this sort of "no-one has to have sex" line, you make me so angry I almost want to throw up. I didn't have even the slightest kind of sexual contact with anybody until I was almost 33 years old. No kissing, nothing. Did that almost kill me? No. What almost killed me was the daily 'knowledge' that everything I felt and desired was supposedly so horribly sinful and that I would go on and feeling and desiring it until the day I died. Is it any wonder that I thought about bringing the day I died forward a bit?

Take your cute little chastity answer and fuck off.

[ 24. August 2013, 00:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Fuck yeah, Orfeo. [Overused]

It was hearing story after story like the above that made me turn to God in prayer at about 16 years old and say, "You know, I haven't got all the theology worked out about this, but I can't be one of the people who allows this stuff to happen, so I am done speaking another word against homosexuals. I pray that you will guide me in the way you want me to be, and show me if I am in error."

He guided me into becoming an activist.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Thankyou Orfeo.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
What orfeo said.

Plus what kind of sadistic creepo god creates beings specifically to inhabit this sort of trap?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Well said Orfeo - and I remember a post from you a couple of years ago: No-one should have to wait until they are 35 before being kissed on a dance floor. They should not, and it's what's so wrong about the hate the sin, love the sinner line.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

But money has no nature other than what we attribute to it. What is a gold coin? Nothing, actually. It's a piece of metal. Well, as a piece of metal there is actually a value to it, but hardly the value we attribute to it. Yet we have progressed far beyond this now, to the point where most of the money that you have presumably comes in the form of some bytes stored on the hard disk of some bank. What those numbers mean is almost entirely in our heads. Of course, they represent real things - labour, trade, ... but the manner in which they do is entirely a social convention. Is a US dollar worth more than a Pound Sterling? Maybe yes, maybe no, but you sure cannot tell simply from what either one of them is. You need to ask what we, our markets, currently do with that currency.

Money is a social convention. It has the nature of an artefact, it is man-made, and in some sense more man-made than most artefacts because there is little to it that is not social convention. A car is what it is because we made it to be that way, but it still is a ton of metal. Money is a lot less tangible. It will be what we make it out to be.

What I've been arguing is exactly that social conventions on money changed. And so what once was just - to condemn the interest-taking of the ancient moneylender (note: nobody says that they did not take interest, "usury" is originally simply a word for interest-taking!) - now had become acceptable in terms of the "new money" that had developed with capitalism. By the same line of thought, if you can argue that money has changed again (to some "post-capitalist" structure), then the question of usury can be back on the table.

The difference to homosexuality is simply that human nature has not changed at all. Homosexuality is not a social construct, a man-made artefact. Of course, there are social structures built around homosexuality, and they may well change. But they do not change the underlying nature of human beings.

Keep on tap dancing Ingo. Some one is bound to be impressed, even if it's only IngoB.
Money is a combination of a physical artifact and a useful shared delusion. There is both a set of social conventions that define how humans interact with money and a behavior of the physical object. You can debase the currency a certain degree, but eventually it probably lose value. Especially with interest, the behavior of money starts to look like a combination of social behavior and a complex system that is similar to ones that don't have humans involved. There's a huge demand for a theory that can actually predict this and to date economists have not found it, although they seem to be giving up on the theory of a rational investor. Charlatans abound of course.

Homosexuality is a combination of biological attributes and social convention. Since the church thinks that celibate homosexuals can be perfect Christians and no longer contemplates burning them at the stake, it's clearly no longer a problem to have these biological attributes.

Ignoring masturbation and Scrooge McDuck swimming in his money pool, significant use of money or homosexual behavior is not a solitary action. Since it requires multiple people, by definition its performance requires social conventions.
This puts homosexual activity in the new magic category you've invented where social conventions can cause the explicit prescriptions of the eternal dogma to be reworded to work with a changed convention to match some hitherto hidden goal. So the dogma about homosexuality can now be reworded. Certainly the social conventions, and the new concept of Gay people as legal citizens is both useful and much changed from the biblical definition of sodomy.


quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But just because you feel free to endlessly go on about my fundamental badness, and I do not reciprocate much, does not mean that I accept your bad judgement or that I have none of my own. Rather, I simply see no gain in exchanging such judgements. It does not advance the discussion, and quite frankly, is rather tedious.

I see no gain in the exchange of judgements , but since you've repeatedly presented your categoric judgment of me as a sinner, I'll give you my judgment of you.
Your endless posting about homosexuality being a sin is tedious. Your repeated spew of vast volumes of nonsense with long irrelevant citations until people tire of responding is extremely tedious. What's worse, I doubt you really believe it. It's just your pride and your self admiration of you own skill in sophistry and an attempt to work from medieval theology as a joke. You can combine epicycles until you eventually approximate an ellipse, but it's a dubious example of the saying that a German joke is no laughing matter. If it didn't have extra enjoyment you take that your fists are punching the wounded and snidely prescribing a painful life it would be a mildly amusing jape of theological steam punk. Your ignorance on how your ideas don't work in the real world with real people reduce your endless contributions to a form of masturbation of the same quality as the gravity wave experiments in a bathtub you mentioned earlier.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Who the hell is the "in crowd"? My opinions are my own, and if they happen to be shared by others that is nice, but not the point.

My OP was probably a little excessive but, as mentioned, I'd had enough of the homophobia locally and the bullshit posted on the ship just tipped the balance and I needed a good rant. Quite cathartic.


It's been cathartic after politely dealing with "I'm Humpty Dumpty and I define what words mean" and "oh, I'm in favor of gay rights, but not just now." It will save a lot of noise in future discussions to point people to the thread.

The problem of course is that the other homophobes who weren't discussed are coming in to strut their stuff. It's like watching the outraged uninvited wicked fairy godmother at Sleeping Beauty's christening.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Take your cute little chastity answer and fuck off.

Well, that's fair enough. I can do that for you right now, little as it may be. Too often I forget that the cross is not a piece of exercise equipment, but an instrument of torture. To approach all this without deep sadness and actual compassion makes a mockery of the truth, no matter how accurate the classification may be. I know this, and indeed I can get there, but I need space and time to slow down for it. My heart is not as quick as my mind. That's not going to happen here though, and it is high time to stop and decompress.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
nicely done, Ingo. respect.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ingo--

Good post. Ditto of Comet's respect.

May I add an observation? You mentioned up thread something to the effect of not letting the light of Christian truth shine on very much of your life at a time.

That is kind of at odds with what you seem to expect of everyone else. You come across as be-weaponed and ready to rumble to assert every bit of Catholic doctrine--when you're not yet ready to accept most of that doctrine in your own life. So you often come across as distinctly uncompassionate.

I know your style is to throw yourself completely into a belief system. But, maybe (as you seem to be realizing in the post above), more of that energy could go to *gently* looking at *yourself*, and working out your path as we all have to do.

Remember your "pearl of great price" you posted in Hell, several years ago? About all of us being wounded zombies, making our way along to God? (Or something to that effect.) I said at the time that I wished you let us see that side of you more often. You said something like it was difficult for you, and a pearl of great price, and you had to treat it carefully.

Maybe it's time to touch base with that again? I'm not saying you need to discuss it with us. (I tend to be careful with my own pearl insights.) But I think it might be a necessary piece of the puzzle that you're trying to puzzle out.

FWIW, YMMV. [Votive]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Great post, orfeo, above. It's the heartlessness that is so gag-making. Clever and heartless is a terrible combination.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I've just read the last five pages of this at a single sitting. Quite an experience.

There has been some seriously sanctimonious, hypocritical shit being flung at IngoB, by the spadeload. He countered it repeatedly with almost heroic fortitude and with much more grace than I could have mustered. And I really don't think you'd have to be on IngoB's "side" on this issue to acknowledge that achievement.

Perhaps that sounds arse-licking. Sobeit. I just wanted to pay tribute to that before the thread is spiked - and I don't much care what anyone else might make of my doing so, to be honest. It would have felt wrong not to say it.

[ETA: "sanctimonious".]

[ 24. August 2013, 11:24: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Thank you, Ingo.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Thankyou Orfeo.

Amen. Me too.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I've just read the last five pages of this at a single sitting. Quite an experience.

There has been some seriously sanctimonious, hypocritical shit being flung at IngoB, by the spadeload. He countered it repeatedly with almost heroic fortitude and with much more grace than I could have mustered. And I really don't think you'd have to be on IngoB's "side" on this issue to acknowledge that achievement.

Perhaps that sounds arse-licking. Sobeit. I just wanted to pay tribute to that before the thread is spiked - and I don't much care what anyone else might make of my doing so, to be honest. It would have felt wrong not to say it.

[ETA: "sanctimonious".]

Interesting you should defend things that IngoB has repented of. Somebody here just doesn't get it.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
There has been some seriously sanctimonious, hypocritical shit being flung at IngoB, by the spadeload. He countered it repeatedly with almost heroic fortitude and with much more grace than I could have mustered. And I really don't think you'd have to be on IngoB's "side" on this issue to acknowledge that achievement.

Yeah, you kinda do. Consider for a moment the shit thrown for years at people like orfeo IRL, shit that makes the suicide rate for LGBT youth astronomical. And IngoB has been steadily on the side of that shit. So I'm not at all impressed by his behavior on this thread.

I'll grant the sanctimony (it's one of my best things!), but I do wonder what you find hypocritical in what's been said in defense of gay people's struggle for acceptance and the right to live like the rest of us.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Orfeo gave it straight from the heart , that carries the day for me .

Many people such as myself have been brought up with prejudices against homosexuality . But whenever someone , such as the church, seeks to nurse those prejudices I automatically baulk such manipulation.
OTOH if I am referred to as a homophobe simply for retaining misgivings that were handed to me by the culture was brought up in then I tend to resent that as well.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
There are degrees of homophobia. If you harbour prejudices about gay people you're a little homophobic, just as if you harbour prejudices about black people you're a little racist. On the other hand if you don't give voice to those prejudices and don't allow them to affect how you treat people, then how is anyone going to know you have them in order to accuse you of homophobia?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Somebody here just doesn't get it.

Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB has been steadily on the side of that shit.

On the side of deliberate gay-baiting or bullying to death? I don't see it myself. If you mean "on the side of those theological positions which honestly see homosexual activity as harmful/sinful" then I'm sure he'd plead guilty as charged. In that case, merely to hold that homosexual sex is not part of God's plan for us is to be on the side of evil - and I know plenty of people here do believe that it is. But I see no personal animus whatsoever from IngoB against gay people. He's already admitted that some of the terms in which he expressed his opinion that such sex is wrong and avoidable have been less compassionate than they should be, but look at the personal beating-up he's been getting here for page after page by a whole bunch of shippies - almost without any support from other shipmates of like mind - and ask yourself how many posters could have kept it as civil as consistently as he did.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'll grant the sanctimony (it's one of my best things!), but I do wonder what you find hypocritical in what's been said in defense of gay people's struggle for acceptance and the right to live like the rest of us.

As it happens, I wasn't thinking of you on the sanctimony front at all, Ruth. But when it comes to hypocrisy, I had in mind those who were quite prepared to argue the toss on the actual substantive points until it was clear that IngoB had the upper hand in the debate and then pilloried him for being too cerebral so as to avoid admitting he had the better of the point in question. Also, those who accused him of being harsh, uncaring and nasty but who got properly stuck in to visceral personal attacks on him by comparison with which anything he'd actually said "against gays" was fluffier than Bambi's bunny. YMMV of course.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Yes, because so many Catholics commit suicide when people accusing them of homophobia make their lives a living hell. Get off your hypocritical high horse, Chesterbelloc and join the human race.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, because so many Catholics commit suicide when people accusing them of homophobia make their lives a living hell.

And if that had anything to do with anything I've actually said you might even have a point. I am very aware of the danger of becoming a hypocrite, mousethief - which is why I use the term sparingly of others. I can recommend such an approach.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, because so many Catholics commit suicide when people accusing them of homophobia make their lives a living hell.

And if that had anything to do with anything I've actually said you might even have a point.
It does, and I do. As I said, you don't get it. People with privilege so seldom do.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Also, those who accused him of being harsh, uncaring and nasty but who got properly stuck in to visceral personal attacks on him by comparison with which anything he'd actually said "against gays" was fluffier than Bambi's bunny. YMMV of course.

There is no polite way of saying "You can not, should not, and must not be with the person you love in a mutually loving and consenting relationship and it is evil if you try to be". It doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on that skunk. It's still a skunk, stinking the place out.

And IngoB, to his credit, eventually realised this. [Overused] And the Parable of the Prodigal Son springs to mind.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It does, and I do.

I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me then.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As I said, you don't get it. People with privilege so seldom do.

[Confused]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't understand how IngoB had the 'upper hand' in the debate. What is this upper hand? I'm curious.

I don't think my complaining about his cerebral approach is a consequence of him having the upper hand, but of him being cerebral, and also arguing that gay love and gay sex are evil and harmful. Where are the cogent arguments for that?

In my view, these attitudes are remnants of an ancient patriarchal view of society, in which women and gays were oppressed and subordinate to 'the rule of the father'.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I don't know why I bother because your fingers are so far into your ears they touch, but here goes.

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But I see no personal animus whatsoever from IngoB against gay people. He's already admitted that some of the terms in which he expressed his opinion that such sex is wrong and avoidable have been less compassionate than they should be, but look at the personal beating-up he's been getting here for page after page by a whole bunch of shippies - almost without any support from other shipmates of like mind - and ask yourself how many posters could have kept it as civil as consistently as he did.

Here you see, IngoB speaks in soul-shredding terms about gay people, and you want to make it an equivalency when people strike back. It's not an equivalency. First we have no indication he has any kind of emotional reaction to what people say -- he has said he doesn't, and there's no reason to disbelieve him. Second, the person with privilege slashing the underprivileged is not the same thing as the underprivileged slashing the privileged, even if the slashes are equivalent.

People saying the soul-destroying things IngoB has repeatedly said cause suicide. It doesn't work the other way; no homophobes have ever committed suicide because the people they savage have swiped back.

In short you are setting up a false equivalency, as if homophobes attacking gays is the same thing as gays attacking homophobes. It's not, because of the dynamics of privilege. Gays can't vote to prevent homophobes from marrying. Homophobes can vote to prevent gays from marrying. Gays don't beat the shit out of or kill homophobes in city parks. Homophobes do beat the shit out of and kill gays in city parks. Gays don't go to homophobophobic nations and speak out in favor of the death penalty for homophobes. Homophobes do go to homophobic nations and speak out in favor of the death penalty for gays. There is no equivalency. One side has all the power.

That is changing but very slowly, and as more straight people realize the evils of homophobia and recognize the rights of gays, the homophobes become more and more savage as they watch their influence and power wane. But their power is still very real, which is why gay marriage is still only legal in 13 (I think) states, and gays are still getting their teeth knocked out in New York City parks.

So howl, howl about how innocent, defenseless IngoB has been so badly treated, the poor little lamb. And slash out against the people who called him on his assholity, just like the good homophobe you are. Join in the slashing and savaging that the gays and their allies have been experiencing since long before Stonewall. The days of your coterie are numbered. Rage, rage against the coming of the light.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Also, those who accused him of being harsh, uncaring and nasty but who got properly stuck in to visceral personal attacks on him by comparison with which anything he'd actually said "against gays" was fluffier than Bambi's bunny. YMMV of course.

There is no polite way of saying "You can not, should not, and must not be with the person you love in a mutually loving and consenting relationship and it is evil if you try to be".
The rhetoric within those quotation marks makes you sound a bit desperate to make it "impolite". But the substantive point - that homosexual sexual activity is objectively sinful to some greater or lesser degree - could still be true, and it could still be an (attempted) act of charity and/or honesty to express such a belief if it were sincerely held (even if that belief were false). You don't concede much by conceding that.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
mousethief

That is a damn fine post, mate.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
mousethief

That is a damn fine post, mate.

Ta.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Fascinating. But I'm talking about a thread on the Ship. Tell me, mousethief: how is IngoB "privileged" on the Ship? How is he "privileged" on this thread? My "coterie"? Seriously? If the days of my "coterie" are numbered, when were they ever numberless here?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Surely, IngoB represents and articulates the power and privilege that the homophobes have had for centuries and centuries. As mousethief eloquently said, this power and privilege is slowly being taken back. For example, in my country the UK, gays are no longer imprisoned, as they were, they are less discriminated against, as they were, they are not ostracized as much as they were.

But we are only part of the way along the road, to counter this great tide of oppression and suppression which has gone on against gays. Again, as mousethief said, the homophobes are making a counter-attack, and in relation to Christianity, they still have the privilege. In my country, the C of E and the Catholic church are institutionally homophobic, so the struggle goes on.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Fascinating. But I'm talking about a thread on the Ship. Tell me, mousethief: how is IngoB "privileged" on the Ship? How is he "privileged" on this thread? My "coterie"? Seriously? If the days of my "coterie" are numbered, when were they ever numberless here?

The ship is part of the world, mate. That's something IngoB doesn't realize either. Do you think that people like Orfeo*, who has suffered dearly in his attempt to reconcile his sexuality with his faith have a different set of emotions for things told them on the ship from things told them in the world as a whole? Do you think that when he comes here, it resets the counter, so that all of the emotional savaging he has had in the world all of a sudden gets laid aside, and the savaging he gets here is in a different, watertight compartment that doesn't touch the other?

It's not just a thread on the ship. It's one part of a huge whole, from the media, from the churches he's been in, from people he's met, as well as from the Ship. You can't just talk about a thread on the ship when you're talking about somebody absorbing a lifetime's worth of bigotry and hate. People don't work that way. Other than IngoB, people who come here bring their whole selves, and their lives outside the ship interact with, inform, and are affected by what they say and read here.

There's not two Orfeos, one that took a beating in the world, and one that's taking a beating here, that you can say, "Nothing that has happened here is of a level or intensity as to cause suicide." Well, no one thing Orfeo has suffered may have been at that level. But it's the cumulative effect. Thing after thing, from this source and that source. Piling up and up.

I dunno. Maybe you're like IngoB appears to be, and you have a different soul for talking on the ship than you have for living your life outside the ship. But if so, you must get it into your skull that that is unusual. Most of us only have one.

As for IngoB being privileged on the ship. That's not the issue. That doesn't matter. People like you and he are privileged in the world (for now).

(*Orfeo: not picking on you; I hope you realize I am just using your name as representative of all the LGBT folks on the ship that people like Chesterbelloc steamroller over.)
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Again, my comments were entirely about the conduct on this thread on this Ship. IngoB has no particular privilege or power here over those whose opinions on this issue differ from his - those posters are in a robustly vocal and overweening majority. And he can't be allowed to voice them here on a discussion board where his view is very much in the minority without being accused of steamrollering? That's absurd.

Your pudding is massively over-egged on my tasting.

[ 25. August 2013, 00:13: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Again, my comments were entirely about the conduct on this thread on this Ship.

Which is absurd, as I have pointed out. You can't separate what happened on this thread from the rest of the world. It is because of what happens in the rest of the world that what happened here is so painful to the gay people. You don't get to say, "I'm going to be shitty to you, but please don't see any relationship whatever between my behavior here and what you have experienced in the rest of your life." And if you shoot somebody with one barrel, don't fucking whine if they shoot back with two.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Again, my comments were entirely about the conduct on this thread on this Ship. IngoB has no particular privilege or power here over those whose opinions on this issue differ from his.

This is so faux-naive, it's a joke. Maybe you haven't noticed that various Christian churches are institutionally homophobic, have campaigned vigorously against SSM in the UK, for example, and still state that gay sex is 'disordered' or evil or harmful.

You can't separate off threads on this forum from real world stuff. Or if you do, you are being specious in the extreme.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
To both quetzacoatl & mousethief:

In other words, even to express such opinions on the Ship is to oppress gay people and is therefore beyond fair comment. Why then not ban such opinions altogether, as with racist or sexist ones? Seriously.

[ 25. August 2013, 00:19: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't separate off threads on this forum from real world stuff. Or if you do, you are being specious in the extreme.

Bullshit.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
To both quetzacoatl & mousethief:

In other words, even to express such opinions on the Ship is to oppress gay people and is therefore beyond fair comment. Why then not ban such opinions altogether, as with racist or sexist ones? Seriously.

There's not a clue bat in the world large enough.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I'm serious. If to express the belief that homosexual acts are sinful is in itself oppressive, why not ban from the Ship like racism or any other kind of jerkism? What's your answer?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
My answer: why should the ship serve as your conscience? Grow your own. You've been told by multiple voices of the harm that your words can cause. Are you so weak-willed that you can't apply the Golden Rule on your own, without somebody forcing you?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Why should it "serve as my conscience" on racism then?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why should it "serve as my conscience" on racism then?

I didn't make that decision. This is a smokescreen for your inability to be a decent human being of your own volition.

"Stop my hands, Sam, I can't keep from typing things I know will cause anguish to others."

Coward.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Also, those who accused him of being harsh, uncaring and nasty but who got properly stuck in to visceral personal attacks on him by comparison with which anything he'd actually said "against gays" was fluffier than Bambi's bunny. YMMV of course.

There is no polite way of saying "You can not, should not, and must not be with the person you love in a mutually loving and consenting relationship and it is evil if you try to be".
The rhetoric within those quotation marks makes you sound a bit desperate to make it "impolite". But the substantive point - that homosexual sexual activity is objectively sinful to some greater or lesser degree - could still be true, and it could still be an (attempted) act of charity and/or honesty to express such a belief if it were sincerely held (even if that belief were false). You don't concede much by conceding that.
Of course it's sincerely held. Every person who kindly helped me try to cure myself was very sincere about it. That's not the point and the frustration is due to the fact that it's blindly held. Completely blind to the damage. If people are trying to help, then they should stop and check once in a while that they're actually helping.

They're not. The whole cure paradigm does not lead to cures. Too many supposed spiritual doctors ignore this, or blame the patient.

So spare the attempts at charity. That was the point. To explain what those attempts do. When Romeo wails 'I thought all for the best', Mercutio is still dying in front of him with a curse on his lips. Okay?


[EDIT: Corrected. All for the best, not only for the best. Dammit, when one quotes one's favourite Shakespeare lines from memory, one should get the wording precisely right.]

[ 25. August 2013, 01:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't separate off threads on this forum from real world stuff. Or if you do, you are being specious in the extreme.

Bullshit.
OK. So you're possibly not being specious. You're merely being ignorant, impolite, insensitive, and utterly inimical to any attempt at understanding.

Frankly you're a moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog.

And out of curiosity, what would your view be if I was part of a campaign to ban all Roman Catholics from being legally married to other Roman Catholics, wanted to ensure your marriage was annulled (at least assuming you are married), and was arguing that taking part in any Roman Catholic sacraments was a sin. And then once I'd ensured that there was no such thing as a Catholic marriage I said that every time you had sex it was adultery and should be treated as such. And I was part of a significant power base within the country. If all that was true would there be a single way I could phrase that that would be polite? Or would you be yowling to high heaven about how it was anti-Catholic bigotry?

I'd agree that those views are anti-Catholic bigotry. But they are as near as I can make them to exact parallels to what you are arguing is just peachy.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm serious. If to express the belief that homosexual acts are sinful is in itself oppressive, why not ban from the Ship like racism or any other kind of jerkism? What's your answer?

My answer is that that's a cop-out by you. You are declining to answer the substantive point that homophobia is oppressive, and leads to great injury to gays and lesbians, both physical and emotional. This has gone on for centuries, and is now being resisted.

You are avoiding this with some martyred appeal to be banned. Nonsense!

Man up! What do say to these critiques of homophobia?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(*Orfeo: not picking on you; I hope you realize I am just using your name as representative of all the LGBT folks on the ship that people like Chesterbelloc steamroller over.)

Yes, no worries, I figured that out immediately and was reading your post in that vein. It's nice being an archetype. [Biased]

I think, though - and this is perhaps what Chesterbelloc isn't grasping - that it's just as important to realise that someone like IngoB is every bit as much fulfilling the role of archetype. Of course it's not simply about Ingo's individual views. But then Ingo makes it quite easy to think of him as the local representative of an institution.

And when I make a post such as the one that is winning me plaudits, it isn't simply about me. In fact, it mostly isn't about me. Frankly my personal experience of my period of internalized homophobia was quite pleasant and light in a lot of ways. There are certain personal experiences I can tap into (there was indeed a friend's wedding where I had those thoughts, one of THE darkest days of my life in terms of personal emotions), but some of the passion is driven by thinking about other people, including the ones who aren't on this earth anymore but also all the other bits and pieces of stories I've heard over the years.

Talking to other gay Christians especially - when we meet each other, it can almost be a ritual of sharing what our experiences have been like, and the emotional courses we follow tend to be pretty similar. Meeting former church ministers is always especially interesting.

So yes, I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that this isn't really about 1-on-1 conversations. Although when it comes to people changing their views, or at least considering them afresh, it's always going to be an individual moment. Enough of those individual moments may add up to a movement.

Sometimes I have to stop and consider whether I have enough patience with those who haven't yet had their moment. I mean, it took me until 2007 to 'get it'. Thankfully I was never walking around telling other people what I thought of homosexuality before that. I have one gay Christian friend who is deeply, deeply embarrassed about how vociferously anti-gay he was while living in the closet married with 2 children.

But at the end of the day, I usually conclude that I can't be 'nice' about it. Damage is occurring, and it doesn't really matter that some people are doing it thoughtlessly rather than maliciously. In fact, all the more reason to point it out, to change thoughtless to thoughtful. If people actually THINK about what they're doing then there's hope that they will stop doing it.

[ 25. August 2013, 01:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In fact, all the more reason to point it out, to change thoughtless to thoughtful. If people actually THINK about what they're doing then there's hope that they will stop doing it.

Dunno, mate. ISTM, it is the thoughtful who do the most damage. Easy to dismiss the Phelps' brand of bilious abuse, less so to hear a calm, studied and seemingly rational dissertation. Worse when it is done with the veneer of love.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
[Hostian aside]

it goes without saying (but, you know, why the fuck not?) that any actual concerns or questions about Ship policy, including what is covered by commandment one, belong in the Styx. But you all already know that, right?

Right.

Carry on.

comet,
Hellhost
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm eager to read it carefully, but to do so I need a link to the post.

Uhh, I'm talking about the very paragraph that you've commented on with "Fuck you." and quoted more than once. It actually says that most gays are unlikely to want what the RCC considers as a proper marriage. That's not actually a particularly contentious claim, given that most heterosexuals in the West don't want that either (and one can be quite cynical about how many RC heterosexuals want it, even if they formally sign up for it).

The actual point I was making was not that all gays fuck around like crazy, or some such. The actual point I was making was that the same word "marriage" hides that there is not simply one divide between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage, but rather that gay marriage, civil heterosexual marriage and RC marriage are all divided against each other. Hence if gays demand marriage for themselves one has to ask which of these gaps they are trying to close, and in my opinion it is not primarily the gap to RC marriage, but to civil heterosexual marriage. Hence gays and RCC shouting at each other over marriage are doing something more complicated than simply fighting over their differences.

Admittedly, the paragraph was short and offensively worded (offensive more directly concerning civil marriage), but this is Hell and that is what I was actually thinking about.

Perhaps you have retired from the field, but your behavior is weaselly enough for you to be called on it.

Here is the original paragraph I objected to:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If gays really want to do something like marrying, and not just adopt the sad shell that civil law has made of marriage, then they need to stop having sex until they get married, stick with that one sex partner till death after having married, and look into adopting several kids during their relationship. Who knows, maybe lots of gays are interested in that, but I wouldn't bet on it.

In it you assert that gays are not interested in raising children, that they are not interested in maintaining marital fidelity, and are not interested in remaining chaste until marriage. I could be forgiven for reading a text behind these statements that gays are sexually dissolute, incapable of fostering a healthy sexuality, incapable of remaining chaste, and have no interest in raising children. In short that all gays are interested in is fucking around like crazy, despite your protestation to the contrary. All these are lamentably common libels incessantly repeated by homophobes throughout the latter half of the 20th century and well into the 21st.

When blacks seemingly demonstrate that they unable to obtain and hold middle class jobs, they are shiftless. When blacks are seemingly unable to build businesses and ascend to the middle class, they are lazy. The technique is depressingly well-worn.

You trot out the same rhetorical framework and dress it up for the new object of your opprobrium.

To the libel about black's shiftlessness one might present A. Philip Randolph. To that of laziness, Greenwood, Oklahoma.

But, you are not interested in Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin. You are not interested in Hillary and Julie Goodridge. You, by your own words, are not interested in people. Not in people who lose custody of their children. Not in people who are denied the opportunity to visit their dying spouses in hospital wards. Not in people who are swindled out of inheritances. Not in people who are separated from their spouses by national borders. Not interested in people who desire to be kissed as teenagers.

And, when called on it, you shuck and jive and say that nobody in the West (wherever that is) is really interested in marriage at all. And you simper and say that you were really only talking about RCC marriage.

You congratulate yourself on your analyst's ability to hold off the godless hordes on an internet bulletin board (here! here!) and you chide yourself on your (incidental) heartlessness.

I ask you to hear your fellow posters' words with humility, for "God is not unjust, and will not lead astray souls who with faith and innocence humbly submit to the advice and judgment of their neighbor."

[ 25. August 2013, 05:22: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
To both quetzacoatl & mousethief:

In other words, even to express such opinions on the Ship is to oppress gay people and is therefore beyond fair comment. Why then not ban such opinions altogether, as with racist or sexist ones? Seriously.

Because while we're still in the process of transitioning from a homophobic society there are still people who are homophobic because they're raised to be or because their church tells them they should be. Some, possibly even most, of those people are still open to a reasoned, compassionate and theologically sound argument. If someone is still sexist or racist these days then they're likely part of the hard core of bigots whom no amount of arguing will correct.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why should it "serve as my conscience" on racism then?

I didn't make that decision. This is a smokescreen for your inability to be a decent human being of your own volition.

"Stop my hands, Sam, I can't keep from typing things I know will cause anguish to others."

Coward.

I'm not that often accused of doing that here, to be honest. But it's no smokescreen - it's a genuine question.

Every single time we get into a substantive debate about what the Catholic Church does or doesn't say about homosexuality (almost always started by those who disagree with the Church) the argument from the non-Catholic side at some point ends up being: "Shut the fuck up with your bigotted and hurtful opinions" or a plain statement that Church's teaching is evil. There's no answering back to that, really, because the people who say it have stopped arguing and have made the issue self-evident.

If it actually is the case that the Church's teaching is self-evidenty bigotted and homophobic and that all right-thinking people must believe this, why allow discussions of it on the Ship at all? And yet discussion of it is - for the time being - still allowed, whereas no-one is allowed to argue the toss over whether racism is acceptible. I conclude that TPTB think there is a difference, but I'm not going to speculate about what that might be. Personally, if it is the case that the Ship overwhelmingly believed this Catholic teaching to be intrinsically evil, then I think it might be worth banning it for the selfish reason that it would avoid me getting into exchanges like this ever again. If it is as self-evidently wicked as racism, why would you not ban it? If it isn't, well...

And, for the record, I try to minimise any potential hurt I may cause on really neuralgic issues like this, often to the point avoiding talking about them at all, believe it or not. Small comfort, I'm sure, but there it is.

[With apologies to Comet.]

[ 25. August 2013, 08:32: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There is a long thread discussing racism in Purgatory currently so that discussion isn't banned on the Ship.

Jonathan Sachs was asked about Judaism and same sex marriage this morning on Sunday - and equivocated along the lines that he heard the pain of homosexuals and remembered their deaths in the concentration camps, but his religion said homosexuality was wrong. His holding to a tenet of faith for which we have so much evidence that the fruits are not good really encapsulated why religions are struggling, and my immediate though was that religions should struggle if they feel they have to hold to damaging tenets of faith. There was a certain irony that he was making this comment after a discussion on how society was failing due to secularisation and lack of trust.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a long thread discussing racism in Purgatory currently so that discussion isn't banned on the Ship.

But the outright expression of racist opinions will get you banned.

Don't get me wrong: I don't really want the Ship to ban expressions of agreement with or support for the Catholic teaching on homosexuality - I think that would on balance be the wrong thing for the Ship to do. But if every discussion of it is just going to end up with abuse of such opinions as being the moral equivalent of racism then that's going to shut down the discussion anyway. And if adhesion to such opinions is just bigotry, what's to discuss anyway?

I'm challenging those who think there is a direct moral equivalence to tell me why they're not seeking to ban it.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Bans are a tactical tool as much as a principled one. Racism and sexism are minority enough opinions that they can be isolated, and as mentioned before the remaining perpetrators are unlikely to be amenable to debate. On the issue of homophobia it is still fairly widespread so different tactics are required - which include winning over those whose upbringing and influences have been homophobic but whose character has the capacity to oppose it.

There are other forums I frequent where homophobia is banned on the same grounds as sexism and racism, and that is appropriate in that context. Like I say, it's a matter of tactics.

[ 25. August 2013, 09:34: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, banning occurs when a former hegemony of ideas has been well and truly rejected and cast out. Thus, in most Christian churches direct racist remarks would be objected to instantly. In a sense, they have become intolerable to most people.

However, this is not true in all contexts, I think. For example, the 'bongo bongo land' politician felt able to produce something fairly racist in a particular context, although it was widely condemned.

Homophobia still exists as a hegemony, especially in Christianity. After all, it's the official position within Anglicanism and Catholicism, and probably other churches.

You can't defeat a hegemony by banning it! First, it has to be contested, so that it in turn comes to seem to intolerable to most people. We are a long way off that.

It also seems a weird abnegation for homophobes to ask to be banned! "I have no counter-argument, so ban me".

[ 25. August 2013, 09:50: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Bans are a tactical tool as much as a principled one. Racism and sexism are minority enough opinions that they can be isolated, and as mentioned before the remaining perpetrators are unlikely to be amenable to debate. On the issue of homophobia it is still fairly widespread so different tactics are required - which include winning over those whose upbringing and influences have been homophobic but whose character has the capacity to oppose it.

There are other forums I frequent where homophobia is banned on the same grounds as sexism and racism, and that is appropriate in that context. Like I say, it's a matter of tactics.

Yes, it's commonly banned. Some forums have a kind of twin-track approach - direct offensive homophobic remarks are banned, but the discussion of homosexuality is permitted, including standard Christian ideas about it being sinful, disordered, evil, and so on. This seems fair enough to me.

It does rather feeble of homophobes to ask to be banned! What about a counter-argument or two?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Chesterbelloc, the majority opinion appears to be that the argument has already been won which, for some inexplicable reason, seems to legitimate the use abusive ad hominems against anyone who remains unconvinced or maintains a contrary view.

Yes, of course there's a place for the occasional hellish ad hominem in a robust debate, but it seems to that the ad hominems on this thread do little more than reveal the native spiritual language of those who employ them.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

.... it seems to that the ad hominems on this thread do little more than reveal the native spiritual language of those who employ them.

You. Bet.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's good to see that irony is not dead.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is a long thread discussing racism in Purgatory currently so that discussion isn't banned on the Ship.

But the outright expression of racist opinions will get you banned.


This is inaccurate. Abusing another with a racist term will get you banned. Expressing a racist idea will not.
Though the current thread on racism has steered away from this, in the past people have expressed clearly racist opinions.but they have expressed them in the way the manner you, Ingo and the rest have.

[ 25. August 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
There is a line not to be crossed with both racism and homophobia. Two examples of folk banned for going way over the line with gay bashing are MerlintheMad and Ender's Shadow.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But the outright expression of racist opinions will get you banned.

[Citation Needed]

To pick the results of just a quick google Saul the Apostle was called to hell for racism. And to quote him from the relevant thread "I make no apology for being ''racist'' if by that term, there should be a certain homogeneous make up of the majority of our race in our island. If that is the case I am 'racist' and proud of it."... "I am ''racist'', in the sense that I believe that heredity can impinge on matters (like ability and IQ) far more than we care to accept." ... "I am a ''racist'', in the sense that I believe there ARE differences between races, unfashionable today of course, but if you look into it; blacks, whites and asians all perform 'to type' on IQ tests and in other behavioural ways" (I couldn't be bothered to go beyond page 2). He is still around.

So no, racism on its own doesn't get you banned despite your claims. Anyone would think that you were looking for reasons to claim that you, as a Roman Catholic, are being persecuted.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

.... it seems to that the ad hominems on this thread do little more than reveal the native spiritual language of those who employ them.

You. Bet.
True. But even a valid tu quoque is just another species of fallacious reasoning.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
So racism is treated with the same twin-track approach, then? If you mouth direct racist abuse, on most forums you will get suspended, except Stormfront, I guess, but on many forums you will be allowed to argue that, for example, race is a genuine biological category, which affects intelligence and so on. This is a kind of intellectual racism, and seems to be widely permitted still.

This to me seems quite like homophobia. Direct homophobic abuse will get you suspended; but arguing that being gay is wrong, immoral, or evil, will not, especially if you are arguing from a Christian standpoint.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But the outright expression of racist opinions will get you banned.

Only because it's usually easier. If somebody were to come up with some substantive and meaningful debate about racism, we'd try to make room for it the same way we leave room for the equally-C1-relevant aspects of sexism and homophobia.

Don't kid yourself.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
OK then... Your inability to take a step back and allow some compromise is likely also part of you rotten Protestant DNA: here you stand and can do no other than being a dickhead. I have to agree though that calling you invincibly wrong does not quite hit the mark. While you are way more stupid than you think you are, you are not really stupid enough to escape moral responsibility. But by all means, carry your grievances around with you till you die, for all I care. I'm sure Christ will be highly impressed by the pristine condition in which you have kept them.

Uh, compromise on knowing more about my own experience as a Protestant than you?

What an unbearable, pompous twit you are.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Zach82, it's a long way up a very lively thread but have you seen this:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Take your cute little chastity answer and fuck off.

Well, that's fair enough. I can do that for you right now, little as it may be. Too often I forget that the cross is not a piece of exercise equipment, but an instrument of torture. To approach all this without deep sadness and actual compassion makes a mockery of the truth, no matter how accurate the classification may be. I know this, and indeed I can get there, but I need space and time to slow down for it. My heart is not as quick as my mind. That's not going to happen here though, and it is high time to stop and decompress.
There are now better targets hereabouts than IngoB. Ain't it worth cutting the guy some slack?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
My bad. I resolved to not bother reading this thread anymore without even reading IngoB's pathetic little temper tantrum, but it is Sunday afternoon now, and I was bored.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Any I ask again: why are the crosses given to gays heavier than to straights?

Ask God. He distributes incredibly heavy crosses to some, and very light ones to others, and we generally have no idea why.
The cross born by LGBT is not a requirement of sexual abstinence. It is homophobia - being spat at, bullied, taught by the church that one is 'intrinsically disordered', put to death by the state in many countries, sacked from jobs, etc.

I didn't know it was the church's job to give out crosses.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Any I ask again: why are the crosses given to gays heavier than to straights?

Ask God. He distributes incredibly heavy crosses to some, and very light ones to others, and we generally have no idea why.
The cross born by LGBT is not a requirement of sexual abstinence. It is homophobia - being spat at, bullied, taught by the church that one is 'intrinsically disordered', put to death by the state in many countries, sacked from jobs, etc.

I didn't know it was the church's job to give out crosses.

IngoB has, in effect, signed off this thread. Zach82 was bored and missed it. What's your excuse?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I'm guilty too.

I LIKED leo's comment.

But IngoB's humility is ... beautiful.

And Johnny. Be good.

[ 25. August 2013, 18:52: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It does rather feeble of homophobes to ask to be banned! What about a counter-argument or two?

You seem already to have decided I'm a homophobe. Thanks. But who precisely was asking to be banned? As to counter-arguments - have you read any of IngoB's posts on the topic at all?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Anyone would think that you were looking for reasons to claim that you, as a Roman Catholic, are being persecuted.

[Roll Eyes] I'm neither seeking a banning nor would consider such on those grouds to count as persecution. I mean, please credit me with some sense of proportion. Or don't. Just as you please.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Don't get me wrong: I don't really want the Ship to ban expressions of agreement with or support for the Catholic teaching on homosexuality - I think that would on balance be the wrong thing for the Ship to do. But if every discussion of it is just going to end up with abuse of such opinions as being the moral equivalent of racism then that's going to shut down the discussion anyway. And if adhesion to such opinions is just bigotry, what's to discuss anyway?

I'm challenging those who think there is a direct moral equivalence to tell me why they're not seeking to ban it.

Personally, I don't think people should be banned for racist, sexist or anti-gay remarks on the Ship. I am a staunch believer in free speech, and I prefer that people who think such things come right out and expose themselves as the intellectual and moral midgets that they are.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I don't think you or Roman Catholic moral teaching are necessarily homophobic, Chester.

However, Christians in general have shown themselves to be homophobic time and again, and the proof is in the treatment of gay, celibate priests. Any Catholic who wants to talk about their Church's teachings on sexuality would do well to remember that. Ultimately, how one should reconcile Catholic teaching with homosexuality is up to each homosexual person.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

And Johnny. Be good.

{Add guitar riff from Marty McFly ("Back To The Future").}
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Personally, I don't think people should be banned for racist, sexist or anti-gay remarks on the Ship. I am a staunch believer in free speech, and I prefer that people who think such things come right out and expose themselves as the intellectual and moral midgets that they are.

I agree, Ruth. It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident. If they then display a homophobic attitude, well then fair enough - let them be criticised for that. But a very vocal minority on the Ship are determined to point out on every such occasion that the matter is already settled and that Catholic teaching and those who hold to it are homophobic by definition. That of course just shuts down the argument as no-one can be bothered for very long to counter that kind of shout-down. It's too wearing and seems pointless.

Therefore, I'm grateful to Zach for his most recent post here.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Personally, I don't think people should be banned for racist, sexist or anti-gay remarks on the Ship. I am a staunch believer in free speech, and I prefer that people who think such things come right out and expose themselves as the intellectual and moral midgets that they are.

I agree, Ruth. It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident. If they then display a homophobic attitude, well then fair enough - let them be criticised for that. But a very vocal minority on the Ship are determined to point out on every such occasion that the matter is already settled and that Catholic teaching and those who hold to it are homophobic by definition. That of course just shuts down the argument as no-one can be bothered for very long to counter that kind of shout-down. It's too wearing and seems pointless.

Therefore, I'm grateful to Zach for his most recent post here.

Well, you seem to be spending a number of posts announcing that it's very wearing to deal with critics, and seems pointless. Does this mean that you are committed to not answering those critics? Or maybe you are happy that IngoB has done that adequately?
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident.

This is true. It is very easy to assume that people choose to be Roman Catholics, but the evidence is very clear that many are born this way, and have no choice whatever in the matter. Even suggestions that Catholicism owes more to nurture than nature are fraught with difficulty. To then blame Catholics for having the cross they have, or indeed to make it worse by accusations of being abominations before the Lord because of how God made them, strikes me as grossly unfair.

[ 26. August 2013, 09:19: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

I'm fed up with any mention of gay rights getting swamped by not only the obvious homophobes but the fucking "concern" trolls waving their wimpy little privileged "concern" dicks around. I don't give a shit about your "concerns" that churches might be forced to conduct gay marriages, because they're bullshit. They're an excuse for not owning up to your own homophobia and still getting to oppose equal marriage. On that score fuck the Evangelical Alliance and their fellow travellers in "Scotland for marriage" who got one of our extremely elderly elders handing out leaflets on the steps of the church while our minister is away on long term sick and unable to object. Every single backer of that pestilential organisation opposed every single advance in rights for gay people and their arguments are disingenuous, dishonest sophistry.

As for the homophobic fuckers acting as apologists for the Russian government and trying to use democracy as a shield to defend their vile actions and engaging in whataboutery to try and distract attention: when you've finished having tea with Mr. Tumnus, kindly go and suck the dick you clearly so desperately crave.


Ah, “homophobes”….. a word apparently coined to denigrate and intimidate anyone who disagrees with any aspect of (what might loosely be called) the gay agenda – for whatever reason they disagree with it. And now we have “crypto-homophobes”….which I assume, are those people who are suspected of having reservations about homosexuality, but are thought to be too cowardly to raise their heads above the parapet. Well, maybe that’s true. Maybe there is indeed a significant number of people who have been cowed into silence, yet still secretly think it is wrong.

Of course, it is not just the more strident members of the gay community who lambast homophobes – real or imagined. Alongside them, are many people who are genuinely compassionate, who understand that gays have had a raw deal for years….and who feel constrained to attack those who they see as the persecutors. And sure, I think we all realise they have also been joined by regiments of others, whose motivation may be somewhat less honourable – the usual band of self-righteous crusaders looking for a cause, as some would have it. That always happens, and one can hardly blame those who have a genuine stake in an issue. Often, these people seem desperate to establish their enlightened, liberal credentials….but in reality, they can come over as nothing more than crypto-fascists. They attach themselves to a ‘cause’, stifling meaningful debate, and intimidating those who oppose them. They give the impression that they cannot see a bandwagon without jumping on it, and if they can embrace a campaign which makes them feel heroic and righteous - it’s a cause worth fighting for. But while I don’t particularly warm to guys like that, I’m pretty sure my own self-esteem needs are just as strong, just as wrong….and likely even less attractive.

No doubt, such people wouldn’t have got past the first line of my post before slapping the homophobe label on me. That’s OK – there’s no minimum requirement of information necessary, to form an opinion. But I would like to offer a couple of thoughts – really, to the gay people themselves….or at least, to those ones who would identify themselves as Christians.

You may have learnt all about mean-spirited persecution from the church; you may have been educated in judgmentalism and hypocrisy from the pulpit. Perhaps you’ve experienced the rejection of the self-righteous, or the incessant and unwelcome attention of the blind, as they grope at the speck in your eye. If you find all that hurtful and appalling, I would agree with you. It is a grotesque parody of Christianity. From my perspective, there is nothing in this world quite as vile as besmirching Christ in this way. It is a shocking and inexcusable lack of love – and it is to portray our saviour as a small-minded, legalistic bigot….even while the church is supposed to be representing him to the world as he really is.

You may have learnt a lot about these attitudes and actions from the church. You are under no obligation to emulate them.

The witch-hunt mentality is never representative of Christ, whoever is doing it. It is always a damaging witness, it always fosters division, and it never blesses anyone….even (and perhaps, especially) if it is motivated by the desire for revenge. Nor does disparagement, insult or bullying ever change what somebody really believes – it didn’t work on you, did it?

You are not likely to change the mind of anyone who holds that the bible condemns homosexual practice, whatever you do….and perhaps, in such circumstances, it would be better just to look for unity on what you can agree on, rather than confrontation on what you can’t. But with those who might come closest to giving ‘homophobes’ a worthwhile meaning – those who have a serious and irrational prejudice against homosexuals – the witch-hunt will always be counter-productive. It might make you feel better, but it will only serve to harden that prejudice. They need to see grace, they need to see Christ in you….and you need to see them through his eyes. If there is going to be a change of heart it will come through love, not condemnation.

Since I’m probably pissing-off quite a few people already, I might as well go for the full house – and say something to those Christians who believe it’s alright to reject gays because ‘the bible says homosexuality is wrong’.

Congratulations – you are better Christians than I could ever be. You have not only reached that state of sinless perfection which entitles you to cast the first stone, you are more than eager to throw it. It must be wonderful indeed, to come to that place where (having dealt decisively with each and every personal sin) you are entirely free to concentrate on the transgressions of others. But please forgive me if I harbour a niggling suspicion of hypocrisy, when you say you “love the sinner, but hate the sin”….because I sometimes have dealings with these sinners you have “loved”. I’ll be spending a few more hours today, talking to someone who has been loved like that. He’s a broken man, and he was broken by people just like you. And quite frankly, I don’t actually give a damn about his sexual preferences – God forgive me, but I don’t even care what the bible may say about them. He’s a child of God, and I must love him…and I do. You didn’t though, did you? You – or people just like you – drove him out of the church, because he didn’t pass your squeaky-clean test. You weighed him and found him wanting, and – one day – Christ will return that favour to you. It seems you may have achieved your understanding of doctrinal correctness, without ever becoming contaminated by love. A major accomplishment, considering the number of times ‘love’ pops up in the bible…..inconvenient and irritating as that concept may be. And that, my friends, is why I’d sooner spend my time dressing the wounds of your victims, than fellowshipping with people like you.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Ah, “homophobes”….. a word apparently coined to denigrate and intimidate anyone who disagrees with any aspect of (what might loosely be called) the gay agenda – for whatever reason they disagree with it.

There is no such thing as the gay agenda. Saying so makes you a homophobe. Which is not a word coined to denigrate and intimidate, but to describe attitudes like yours.
 
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
Originally posted by mousethief:

There is no such thing as the gay agenda. Saying so makes you a homophobe. Which is not a word coined to denigrate and intimidate, but to describe attitudes like yours.

Well, I thank you for your illuminating and considered response.

Re. the gay agenda, I had in mind things like SSM and the situation with gay priests...in debates on which the word 'homophobe' has been frequently used. I had no idea that the mere recognition of these issues as an agenda defined me as a homophobe, or even that the word was coined to describe attitudes just like mine....whatever you think those attitudes might be. I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that your post is actually a pretty good example of 'homophobe' being used to denigrate or intimidate.

Nonetheless, I am grateful for this sharper definition of the term. I am also grateful that you have so precisely exemplified just the kind of people I was discussing in my second paragraph - and, in doing so, provided a clearer definition of exactly how they behave, than I could have ever done.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Reading through this thread, something has become clear to me that's made me think. Maybe it's only me, but maybe it's not… anyways:

ISTM that the RCC's (and others, but they're the ones under discussion at present) condemnation of homosexual people feels personal in a way that others of its condemnations don't. To wit: I am also in a relationship that the RCC would never sanction. I am currently dating a divorcee, thus the RCC writes me off as an immoral adulteress. After careful scientific checking and re-checking, I can confirm that the number of rips I give about their opinion amounts to precisely zero with no remainders. I Just Don't Care™. The RCC apologists can go on into they're blue in the face about their dogma on the question and it just doesn't upset me. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I'm in no danger of shedding any tears about it.

OTOH, homosexual participants seem to be saying quite clearly that the condemnation of homosexuality hurts and does feel personal to them. I'm coming to the conclusion that the reason must be to do with the amount of crap they've already faced, but anyway, it's given me food for thought.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
la vie en rouge

But historically gays and lesbians have had to face a huge amount of rejection, punishment, imprisonment, executions, bullying, suicides by gays, and so on.

So a religious condemnation of homosexuality does not stand alone; it forms part of a whole ideological culture of homophobia which has been literally deadly for gays and lesbians.

Of course, Western society has shown an amazing turn-around on this issue - for example, in the UK, within my lifetime, homosexuality has been decriminalized, gays have been allowed to adopt children and get married.

Hence, I see Christianity as providing one of the last ideological redoubts for homophobia.
 
Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
For those who've waited anxiously for my thread summary: 'heart' triumphs over 'mind'.

And sorry for the delay - I've been busy. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
OTOH, homosexual participants seem to be saying quite clearly that the condemnation of homosexuality hurts and does feel personal to them.

So when do the RCC folk get more than a modicum of sympathy? Seems to me one here recently took his fair share of abuse and then some... how many RCC types have committed suicide and other self-loathing behaviors based on public beratement?

Hmmmm?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
mousethief asked a similar question a while back - how many homophobes have committed suicide through being rejected by gays, and anti-homophobes?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident.

This is true. It is very easy to assume that people choose to be Roman Catholics, but the evidence is very clear that many are born this way, and have no choice whatever in the matter. Even suggestions that Catholicism owes more to nurture than nature are fraught with difficulty. To then blame Catholics for having the cross they have, or indeed to make it worse by accusations of being abominations before the Lord because of how God made them, strikes me as grossly unfair.
Most people are members of a particular religion because they are born into it, yes. But this is not an excuse. Especially not for religion. Are there not multiple teachings regarding examining one's belief? Surely more lines in the bible condemning the lack of sincere faith than condemning homosexuality.
And, as moron points out, the effects seem to be heavily slanted in one direction.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident.

This is true. It is very easy to assume that people choose to be Roman Catholics, but the evidence is very clear that many are born this way, and have no choice whatever in the matter. Even suggestions that Catholicism owes more to nurture than nature are fraught with difficulty. To then blame Catholics for having the cross they have, or indeed to make it worse by accusations of being abominations before the Lord because of how God made them, strikes me as grossly unfair.
Most people are members of a particular religion because they are born into it, yes. But this is not an excuse. Especially not for religion. Are there not multiple teachings regarding examining one's belief? Surely more lines in the bible condemning the lack of sincere faith than condemning homosexuality.
And, as moron points out, the effects seem to be heavily slanted in one direction.

[Smile]

My post was ironic.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's just that I think it should be possible to discuss the Catholic teaching on homosexuality without those who hold to that teaching being ipso facto labelled homophobic as if that were offensively self-evident.

This is true. It is very easy to assume that people choose to be Roman Catholics, but the evidence is very clear that many are born this way, and have no choice whatever in the matter. Even suggestions that Catholicism owes more to nurture than nature are fraught with difficulty. To then blame Catholics for having the cross they have, or indeed to make it worse by accusations of being abominations before the Lord because of how God made them, strikes me as grossly unfair.
Most people are members of a particular religion because they are born into it, yes. But this is not an excuse. Especially not for religion. Are there not multiple teachings regarding examining one's belief? Surely more lines in the bible condemning the lack of sincere faith than condemning homosexuality.
And, as moron points out, the effects seem to be heavily slanted in one direction.

[Smile]

My post was ironic.

I caught that. [Smile]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
My apologies, then. Both for missing this and for the assumptions which followed.

ETA: But wait! Your location is in the US, but you say you used irony. I'm confused now.

[ 26. August 2013, 15:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My apologies, then. Both for missing this and for the assumptions which followed.

No worries. [Smile]

What you said is true enough.

quote:

ETA: But wait! Your location is in the US, but you say you used irony. I'm confused now.

If that is the case you take it as ironic as well.

I am in sunny England.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And if I may so, quite delicious irony, ACR. I did enjoy it.

It's always difficult on the internet, as clues about irony are absent, e.g. a raised eyebrow, a curl of the lip, a tone of voice, etc.

I once did a ironicalistic post about my (male) dog humping other male dogs, and saying that evangelicals came out of their houses to remonstrate with him, and his gayness. And with me for being his male pimp.

Anyway, would you bleeve it, a few posters expressed shock that evangelicals could be so puritanical!
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And if I may so, quite delicious irony, ACR. I did enjoy it.

It's always difficult on the internet, as clues about irony are absent, e.g. a raised eyebrow, a curl of the lip, a tone of voice, etc.

I once did a ironicalistic post about my (male) dog humping other male dogs, and saying that evangelicals came out of their houses to remonstrate with him, and his gayness. And with me for being his male pimp.

Anyway, would you bleeve it, a few posters expressed shock that evangelicals could be so puritanical!

What fun!! [Big Grin]

If you give too many clues it isn't as much fun. There was one in mine: abomination. Does anyone ever use that word, apart from irt ss activity?

When was gluttony, avarice, theft, adultery, or indeed Catholicism, ever called an abomination before the Lord?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You've not been round the Ship that long. I've seen homosexuality described as an abomination:
quote:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
ACR

Yes, if you play it too dead-pan, nobody gets it. Some of my jokes fall flat because of that.

So you have to over-egg the pudding just enough to give the wink, but not too much, as then you are becoming crass, and as Oscar said, that is enough wall-paper for one day.

My example above was well over-egged, what with the evangelicals remonstrating with a gay dog! But still, there is also the rule of POE, that is, the most egregious satire of creationism cannot exaggerate its literal expression. This seems correct.

But maybe it's true of religion in general - there is nothing so ridiculous that a religious person has not said it.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You've not been round the Ship that long. I've seen homosexuality described as an abomination:
quote:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

Sorry Ck, perhaps my abbreviations were too obscure; 'apart from in relation to same sex activity.'

Is it just me ... ?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
No, I knew it was a reflection back of the religious position on homosexuality to the RC church. You're assuming accusations of abominations aren't thrown around that much. It's surprising when it is used.

John Wyndham used it a lot in the Chrysalids iirc.

[ 26. August 2013, 16:14: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Craigmaddie (# 8367) on :
 
quote:
I'm fed up with any mention of gay rights getting swamped by not only the obvious homophobes but the fucking "concern" trolls waving their wimpy little privileged "concern" dicks around. I don't give a shit about your "concerns" that churches might be forced to conduct gay marriages, because they're bullshit. They're an excuse for not owning up to your own homophobia and still getting to oppose equal marriage. On that score fuck the Evangelical Alliance and their fellow travellers in "Scotland for marriage" who got one of our extremely elderly elders handing out leaflets on the steps of the church while our minister is away on long term sick and unable to object. Every single backer of that pestilential organisation opposed every single advance in rights for gay people and their arguments are disingenuous, dishonest sophistry.

As for the homophobic fuckers acting as apologists for the Russian government and trying to use democracy as a shield to defend their vile actions and engaging in whataboutery to try and distract attention: when you've finished having tea with Mr. Tumnus, kindly go and suck the dick you clearly so desperately crave.

Another confirmation why I rarely post on Ship of Fools these days.

You'd have been well-placed in any of the totalitarian regimes of the last 100 years with your heady brew of intellectual-thuggery and contempt for individual conscience. I suspect when parents start getting arrested for trying to protect their children from State indoctrination you'll be outside the court jeering at them.

What depths of unhappiness must have given birth to the display of hatred and obscenity in your OP.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.
And if you wish the right to express your beliefs, then I've the right to express my opinion of them.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.

What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
Another confirmation why I rarely post on Ship of Fools these days.

You'd have been well-placed in any of the totalitarian regimes of the last 100 years with your heady brew of intellectual-thuggery and contempt for individual conscience. I suspect when parents start getting arrested for trying to protect their children from State indoctrination you'll be outside the court jeering at them.

What depths of unhappiness must have given birth to the display of hatred and obscenity in your OP.

You're confusing anger with hatred. In any case individual conscience means you get to choose not to marry someone of the same sex as you. It doesn't mean you get to prevent others doing so.

I'll gladly acknowledge that my anger is unproductive; that the people oppressed by those I lashed out against in the OP are not served by it. Indeed elsewhere on the ship I have discussed at length the causes and impacts of my anger over this issue. As I've already mentioned in this thread the purpose of the post was catharsis as much as anything, to let off some steam.

I'm not, however, willing to pretend that this is an issue on which there are a range of equally valid viewpoints, any more than I would be on the issue of slavery (to choose an example with plenty of Biblical backing). There is a historic injustice which is being rectified before our eyes and some people are trying to lay down in front of it. To oppose equality for gay people is to perpetuate and promote evil. At the root of that is homophobia - the fear or hatred of gay men and women. I'm not going to rehash every argument again here. Suffice to say that my anger is a sometimes excessive and inappropriate response to a genuine evil.

The better way to fight that evil is probably things like this:
http://thurible.net/2013/08/24/congratulations-3/
The wedding, in all respects except the legal formality, of 2 men at St. Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow. Congratulations and many happy years to them both.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.

What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
(Hoo Boy.)

HE HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T LET HIS PERSONAL VIEWS AFFECT THE PASSAGE OF FAIR LEGISLATION.

Even back when I was a GLL teenager and believed homosexuality was definitely a sin, I had this concept solid.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
HE HAS A RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T LET HIS PERSONAL VIEWS AFFECT THE PASSAGE OF FAIR LEGISLATION.

Forgive me, Kelly, but you sneaked a question-begging "fair" into that. But leave that aside: why hasn't he or anyone else in a liberal democracy got a right to protest against what he holds to be harmful legislation - even if he might be wrong about that? It seems like a setting a very dangerous precedent to me to urge people with opinions that conflict with the majority on a matter of legislation to shut up and keep out of the debate in case they influence the decision. What right have you got to ask anyone to do that?

[ 26. August 2013, 18:28: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I'm still waiting for someone to describe the harmful effects of homosexual sex. Been waiting for years, actually.

Every other sinful thing has negative effects in this life -- sometimes they're subtle, but sooner or later they're observable. For this one, all anyone can ever say is that it's bad, God doesn't like it, etc etc.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.

What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
I've had the impression that you can be close-minded and bull-headed, but until this point I hadn't considered you stupid. Did I state he could no express his opinion? Did you read the sentence you clipped from my post?
And what RuthW said. No one has yet explained how homosexual marriage has any effect on hetero marriage. But legislation prohibiting it certainly has a negative effect. If you have any explanation, please drop down to DH and we can discuss.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?

He's within his rights to hold that opinion, and to express it, at least here in the US.

Others are within their rights to think he's a homophobic asshole, and to say so.

Free speech is messy...
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
why hasn't he or anyone else in a liberal democracy got a right to protest against what he holds to be harmful legislation - even if he might be wrong about that? It seems like a setting a very dangerous precedent to me to urge people with opinions that conflict with the majority on a matter of legislation to shut up and keep out of the debate in case they influence the decision. What right have you got to ask anyone to do that?

Well, I think institutionalized celibate priesthood is a bunch of crazyass bullshit that causes a shit ton of harm. Doesn't mean I'm going to force my opinion into your bedroom dynamics, or lack thereof.

We all have our opinions, sunshine. it's the forcing of others to comply with our view of the ideal world that turns us into dickheads.

now, if in some wacky series of events I was given the opportunity to vote on whether priests need to stay celibate, I'd definitely vote my conscience. barring that, I'll keep myself and my children away from people in that situation that I don't know well enough to trust, and allow you guys to just go on fucking your own heads up. So long as your weird little bedroom habits don't harm me and mine, fine. I'll let you embrace your crazy.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:

Reading through this thread, something has become clear to me that's made me think. Maybe it's only me, but maybe it's not… anyways:

ISTM that the RCC's (and others, but they're the ones under discussion at present) condemnation of homosexual people feels personal in a way that others of its condemnations don't. To wit: I am also in a relationship that the RCC would never sanction. I am currently dating a divorcee, thus the RCC writes me off as an immoral adulteress. After careful scientific checking and re-checking, I can confirm that the number of rips I give about their opinion amounts to precisely zero with no remainders. I Just Don't Care™. The RCC apologists can go on into they're blue in the face about their dogma on the question and it just doesn't upset me. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I'm in no danger of shedding any tears about it.

Would you care more about the RCC position on divorce if they were busy trying to rescind the laws that make divorce valid the way they have in other countries where they have more power on the subject?
You might find the dogma more upsetting if you were not allowed an adulterous remarriage.


quote:

OTOH, homosexual participants seem to be saying quite clearly that the condemnation of homosexuality hurts and does feel personal to them. I'm coming to the conclusion that the reason must be to do with the amount of crap they've already faced, but anyway, it's given me food for thought.

It felt quite personal here in Seattle when the RCC lectured from the pulpits to their faithful to vote against legalizing same sex marriage in the last election, even for non-Catholics. The deluge of crap is not in the past tense in the U.S. It's an ongoing struggle and tolerating the crap has direct consequences for the personal lives of gay people, both Catholic and non-Catholic.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm still waiting for someone to describe the harmful effects of homosexual sex. Been waiting for years, actually.

Every other sinful thing has negative effects in this life -- sometimes they're subtle, but sooner or later they're observable. For this one, all anyone can ever say is that it's bad, God doesn't like it, etc etc.

It's well known that homosexual sex leads to dancing. :-)
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm still waiting for someone to describe the harmful effects of homosexual sex. Been waiting for years, actually.

Actually, I was talking about harmful legislation - implicitly about defining legal marriage to include same-sex couples - and was admitting that the perception of harm there was subjective and fallible. Should those of us living in liberal democracies really be questioning or attempting to restrict someone's right to act even on an erronious conception of the common good - up to and including attempting to influence future legislation and others' opinions - so long as that action is within the law? Some comments here seem to suggest that we should. I think that's quite alarming and deeply imprudent.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.

What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
I've had the impression that you can be close-minded and bull-headed, but until this point I hadn't considered you stupid. Did I state he could no express his opinion? Did you read the sentence you clipped from my post?
I did, and I understood it. If you do think that he should be allowed to express his opinion, and yet you think that his right should not iminge upon yours, do you include his right to attempt, by legal means, to influence the legislature by the free expresion of this opinion? It seems to me you might not. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and indeed I hope so.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:

Reading through this thread, something has become clear to me that's made me think. Maybe it's only me, but maybe it's not… anyways:

ISTM that the RCC's (and others, but they're the ones under discussion at present) condemnation of homosexual people feels personal in a way that others of its condemnations don't. To wit: I am also in a relationship that the RCC would never sanction. I am currently dating a divorcee, thus the RCC writes me off as an immoral adulteress. After careful scientific checking and re-checking, I can confirm that the number of rips I give about their opinion amounts to precisely zero with no remainders. I Just Don't Care™. The RCC apologists can go on into they're blue in the face about their dogma on the question and it just doesn't upset me. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I'm in no danger of shedding any tears about it.

Would you care more about the RCC position on divorce if they were busy trying to rescind the laws that make divorce valid the way they have in other countries where they have more power on the subject?
You might find the dogma more upsetting if you were not allowed an adulterous remarriage.


quote:

OTOH, homosexual participants seem to be saying quite clearly that the condemnation of homosexuality hurts and does feel personal to them. I'm coming to the conclusion that the reason must be to do with the amount of crap they've already faced, but anyway, it's given me food for thought.

It felt quite personal here in Seattle when the RCC lectured from the pulpits to their faithful to vote against legalizing same sex marriage in the last election, even for non-Catholics. The deluge of crap is not in the past tense in the U.S. It's an ongoing struggle and tolerating the crap has direct consequences for the personal lives of gay people, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

Hostly Notice

Palimpsest,

Give everyone a chance please and include the names of those you quote in your posts. There's a whole UBB practice thread in The Styx, and it isn't just for other people.

Hostly Notice ends

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Individual conscience" Craigmaddie? Nice code for the right of an individual to pronounce judgement upon a group.
Believe whatever you wish, you have that right. However your rights end when you attempt to impinge upon mine.

What does that mean, though? That Craigmaddie has the right to believe that homosex is wrong so long as he keeps that to himself in case it upsets a gay person?
I've had the impression that you can be close-minded and bull-headed, but until this point I hadn't considered you stupid. Did I state he could no express his opinion? Did you read the sentence you clipped from my post?
I did, and I understood it. If you do think that he should be allowed to express his opinion, and yet you think that his right should not iminge upon yours, do you include his right to attempt, by legal means, to influence the legislature by the free expresion of this opinion? It seems to me you might not. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and indeed I hope so.
So oppressing others by legal means is "Free Expression"? Slavery was "Free Expression"? Denying women the vote was "Free Expression"?
The premise behind enacting laws, in a free(ish) society is to benefit said society. Your interpretation that God feels homosexual marriage is icky does not meet this standard.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Forgive me, Kelly, but you sneaked a question-begging "fair" into that.

Perhaps that is a bit American of me. We have the First Amendment that prevents creation of laws that support one religion of another. The objections of homosexual marriage largely devolve down to religious objections. Even when I firmly believed homosexuality was a sin, I saw it as not my place to restructure constitutional precedent to accommodate my religious beliefs. In fact, I saw such accommodation as unsporting and self-indulgent-- my religion was founded in a time when if someone in the right mood, they could crucify you for not admitting Caesar was God. Early Christians did not have the luxury of whining about how they couldn't get non-Christians to restructure society to serve them, and I have always believed it insults the martyrs when we do such whining. Always. Even when I was con-evo.

So, Perhaps my statement might "beg a question" in some places, but in my country it's pretty clear, to me at least-- it is totally unfair to find ways to work around the laws of the country that you live in and it is especially repugnant if you use God as an excuse. It is very un--Christian, if you asked me.

[ 26. August 2013, 21:21: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Hostly Notice

Palimpsest,

Give everyone a chance please and include the names of those you quote in your posts. There's a whole UBB practice thread in The Styx, and it isn't just for other people.

Hostly Notice ends

Sioni Sais
Hellhost

My apologies, I'll try to be tidier.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you do think that he should be allowed to express his opinion, and yet you think that his right should not iminge upon yours, do you include his right to attempt, by legal means, to influence the legislature by the free expresion of this opinion? It seems to me you might not. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and indeed I hope so.

So oppressing others by legal means is "Free Expression"?
Load the question, why don't you.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Slavery was "Free Expression"? Denying women the vote was "Free Expression"?

This is a weird sort of rhetorical question, because the obvious answer to your question is not "no" as you seem to expect but "yes" - within the restricted democracy prevailing at that time. To be precise, it was free expression on the part of those who had the freedom of expression. Now, in most liberal democracies, both those who support and those who oppose moves to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples have complete freedom of expression. The majority of voices in the majority of such places seem to be pretty equally balanced but with a small majority perhaps prevailing in favour. So far, freedom of expression seems to have been granted to both sides. Is that something you are unhappy with? I can hardly imagine so.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The premise behind enacting laws, in a free(ish) society is to benefit said society.

Ha! Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, but let's be realistic. What would be ideal and what tends to be actual in the motivation for laws are often radically divergent. That's the way liberal democracies actually work.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your interpretation that God feels homosexual marriage is icky does not meet this standard.

What - supposing it were a fair summation of my actual opinions - has that got to do with anything? I'm talking about people being free to express their opinions - however arrived at - and to seek to influence others to share them, right or wrong (within the limits of the law).
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Perhaps relevant to the experience of oppression-as-free-expression is a point I made earlier today on a different subject: equality feels like confinement to the privileged. Or, in this case, formerly privileged.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm talking about people being free to express their opinions - however arrived at - and to seek to influence others to share them, right or wrong (within the limits of the law).

Share their opinions, fine. Create legislation, not so fine. Homosexuals are a minority. The legislative systems in most of the countries represented herein are designed to protect minority groups from the majority groups.
Was the persecution of RCC's in the past just a "Free Expression" of opinion? Would you consider it so again?
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Perhaps relevant to the experience of oppression-as-free-expression is a point I made earlier today on a different subject: equality feels like confinement to the privileged. Or, in this case, formerly privileged.

Ah yes, the old trick of painting a minority as privileged or undeservedly well-off in order to take action against them without proper justification. Stick 'em in a ghetto I say.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm talking about people being free to express their opinions - however arrived at - and to seek to influence others to share them, right or wrong (within the limits of the law).

Share their opinions, fine. Create legislation, not so fine.
This is what I really don't get. As a minority within most of the relevant states ourselves, Catholics who hold these views are in no position to "create legislation". For a start, the existing marriage legislation in most places would have sufficed for most of us - we weren't looking to create anything. What you seem to be saying is that even to attempt to influence legislation by the exercise of our freedom of expression is not acceptible ("not so fine"). Since in most places it has been necessary to "create legislation" to permit same-sex marriage unions, why is it ok in your book for those in favour of that to do so, but not ok for those who oppose it to, um, oppose it?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Creating legislation to allow gay marriage is exactly the same as creating legislation to prevent other discrimination. Such as preventing racial or gender discrimination. Are you saying those laws are not a good thing?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Creating legislation to allow gay marriage is exactly the same as creating legislation to prevent other discrimination. Such as preventing racial or gender discrimination. Are you saying those laws are not a good thing?

No. I'm saying that, in a liberal democracy, the expectation ought to be that those who - in my view mistakenly - oppose unfair discrimination on the grounds of race and sex ought to be allowed to voice that opposition, even if wrong and even at the risk of influencing others to oppose it themseleves. Ask yourself what the ramifications of the alternative are, and I'm pretty sure you won't like them.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you do think that he should be allowed to express his opinion, and yet you think that his right should not impinge upon yours, do you include his right to attempt, by legal means, to influence the legislature by the free expression of this opinion? It seems to me you might not. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, and indeed I hope so.

So oppressing others by legal means is "Free Expression"?
Load the question, why don't you.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Slavery was "Free Expression"? Denying women the vote was "Free Expression"?

This is a weird sort of rhetorical question, because the obvious answer to your question is not "no" as you seem to expect but "yes" - within the restricted democracy prevailing at that time. To be precise, it was free expression on the part of those who had the freedom of expression. Now, in most liberal democracies, both those who support and those who oppose moves to change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples have complete freedom of expression. The majority of voices in the majority of such places seem to be pretty equally balanced but with a small majority perhaps prevailing in favour. So far, freedom of expression seems to have been granted to both sides. Is that something you are unhappy with? I can hardly imagine so.

I think my Americanism is too embedded to give a global argument. So here's the US version.

The United States has constitutional protections that protect people from "unfair" application of laws that have passed by a majority vote. The recent Supreme Court case said that there was no evidence that society benefited from prohibiting gays from marrying so to deny marriage to some was an unconstitutional law because the unfairness served no demonstrable purpose.
Now the Supreme Court is no rock of Gay rights so the establishment of "fairness" may waver in the upcoming onslaught of cases on Gay Marriage on a state by state basis. However the underlying principal is not symmetric; those who are protected by constitutional fair application can democratically pass laws promoting fairness, and those who oppose fair application will have their democratically voted laws struck down.
Some such fairness decisions become quickly established; for example the Supreme Court invalidated laws passed by states prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In modern times, you would have trouble re-establishing the restrictions on democracy that allowed laws denying woman suffrage or black votes. Pretty much anyone proposing that is viewed in modern US society as despicable or deranged. Other rulings can be retracted as the political surge in the supreme court goes back and forth, for example the recent decision that there was not long need to monitor states to protect the rights for Blacks to vote.

So when you ask "are you opposed for the right of those who oppose allowing gays to marry to pass laws preventing that" I say, yes I am, by exercise of the fairness doctrine. And as much as "fairness" is a tug of war I'm going to keep working to keep it as a doctrine. I think the odds are pretty good for that and part of that fight is establishing social convention that prohibiting same sex marriage is despicable. The states that have allowed Gay Marriage for a few years such as Massachusetts have seen the opposition fade away, in the same way the movement to prohibit inter-racial marriage faded from a law, to an attempt to subvert laws, to a social prohibition and then an unenforceable custom. You may term that "anti-free expression" but we have lots of 'anti-free expression" in our laws.

This asymmetric position is not unjust. It would be unjust to not allow laws against same-sex marriage because of constitutional rights and to allow laws prohibiting heterosexual marriage. The same constitutional protections defeat all such laws, and they should all be deemed despicable. Of course, such balance is artificial because there are not laws prohibiting heterosexual marriage.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And yet, most of the governments herein represented do exactly this. They are structured to balance the will of the people with the good of the people.* Therefore enacting legislation not necessarily directly supported by the majority.


*Theoretically, at least. In practice it is a bit messy.

ETA: Response to Chesterbelloc and to acknowledge cross-post.

[ 26. August 2013, 23:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
There's a big difference between personally thinking opinions are immoral and the question of how far they should be legally expressed in a democracy, but it's an entirely different question as to how far people who express anti-gay views should be able to get away without anyone mentioning the word 'homophobe' or 'homophobic'

Personally I can't help wondering if one of these days some of the nastier middle-eastern regimes will get themselves decent PR and start arguing that they are right to legally discriminate against Christians because those evil Christians with their whacky Trinitarian views have 'redefined God'.

If the only allowed and accepted religious definition of worship is to a single God with no multiple persons, then by definition those nasty Christian people are teaching some evil perversion which simply can't be worship and which redefines the community's traditional definition of worship. Ergo public expression of that nasty stuff simply shouldn't be made legal or the next thing you know, people will be being forced to have masses in mosques by jackbooted Christian social workers or something, obviously.

Children - won't somebody think of the children? - what would happen to them if Christians were given equal rights to worship? Why they would be indoctrinated by the state into thinking this Christian perversion should be legal and considered to be a normal ordinary way for some people to worship! Also the sky would fall, there would again be masses in mosques, and it would be as bad for the believers as if they lived under Hitler and all the other totalitarians ( thanks Craigmaddie!) because people on bulletin boards might use the phrase 'fuck off' or the suffix -phobia when talking about them.

See that's what happens if you let people have equal rights to perform non-violent consenting solemn religious ceremonies which harm no-one. At least that's what I glean from some of the sillier stuff on this thread. And you know what? Yes when applied to LGBT people that sort of argument is homophobic in the normal usage of the word to mean showing anti-gay prejudice.

The 'redefinition of marriage' stuff is just a fancy way to say 'Blasphemy!' to people with different religious views. If people tried the same spin as a reason for keeping public Christian worship illegal in countries where it's banned, not one of the vociferous proponents of 'redefinition' as a terrible outrage would fail to recognise it as anti-Christian prejudice to be opposed. And if 'liberals' proposed to use nicey-nicey mealy-mouthed words about it to avoid calling it out as prejudice and discrimination, we'd soon hear from the Mudfrogs et al about the error of our ways. But when Mudfrog (and others) do it to gay people, nobody's supposed to comment on it by using the ordinary word for anti-gay prejudice.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Ah, “homophobes”….. a word apparently coined to denigrate and intimidate anyone who disagrees with any aspect of (what might loosely be called) the gay agenda – for whatever reason they disagree with it. And now we have “crypto-homophobes”….which I assume, are those people who are suspected of having reservations about homosexuality, but are thought to be too cowardly to raise their heads above the parapet. Well, maybe that’s true. Maybe there is indeed a significant number of people who have been cowed into silence, yet still secretly think it is wrong.

If you really wanted to know what the word homophobe means, it's been around for 40 or more years and you could bother to look it up in Wikipedia rather than guessing what it means. Cryptic Homophobe and Concern Troll are people who are nominally in favor of gay rights but think no action against those who damage gay people should be done right now because it's not perfect and oh well, better to take the damage.

If you want an example
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

You are not likely to change the mind of anyone who holds that the bible condemns homosexual practice, whatever you do….and perhaps, in such circumstances, it would be better just to look for unity on what you can agree on, rather than confrontation on what you can’t. But with those who might come closest to giving ‘homophobes’ a worthwhile meaning – those who have a serious and irrational prejudice against homosexuals – the witch-hunt will always be counter-productive. It might make you feel better, but it will only serve to harden that prejudice. They need to see grace, they need to see Christ in you….and you need to see them through his eyes. If there is going to be a change of heart it will come through love, not condemnation.

Yup, no need to do anything practical like defend yourself against getting beaten up. No need to call people who do this damage because it might hurt their feelings. Better to do nothing says the concern troll.


quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:


Of course, it is not just the more strident members of the gay community who lambast homophobes – real or imagined.
Alongside them, are many people who are genuinely compassionate, who understand that gays have had a raw deal for years….and who feel constrained to attack those who they see as the persecutors.

Yes there's so little homophobia out there that it has to be made up. You're saying "don't do anything to confront persecution since RM is an expert who knows it doesn't really exist . Instead I'd rather my friends help me as they have. Making sure I don't get fired from my job for being gay, or being beat up in front of a policeman for being gay. Rather than wait for the magic of Rhythm Methodists Christ like behavior to fix things.
You seem to slipped in that persecution is imaginary into your rhetoric.
It's not, and people being damaged like the person you describe in your post are the result of that. He's not a unique case. It would be great to argue with those who have do the persecution.
But if the homophobes can't be convinced, and it's been done a lot of times, even sometimes by me, I'd settle for them being scared of the consequences of indulging in their god given hobby of tormenting gay people.
For example, the Dan Savage "it gets better" program tells teenagers that the anti gay crap they get in church and school can be survived and they can have a good life. It calls homophobia for what it is, and there are a lot of young people who have figured out the problem is not them, it's the people in their schools and churches and homes who are damaging them. The people we call homophobes.

quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

And sure, I think we all realise they have also been joined by regiments of others, whose motivation may be somewhat less honourable – the usual band of self-righteous crusaders looking for a cause, as some would have it. That always happens, and one can hardly blame those who have a genuine stake in an issue. Often, these people seem desperate to establish their enlightened, liberal credentials….but in reality, they can come over as nothing more than crypto-fascists. They attach themselves to a ‘cause’, stifling meaningful debate, and intimidating those who oppose them. They give the impression that they cannot see a bandwagon without jumping on it, and if they can embrace a campaign which makes them feel heroic and righteous - it’s a cause worth fighting for. But while I don’t particularly warm to guys like that, I’m pretty sure my own self-esteem needs are just as strong, just as wrong….and likely even less attractive.

I'm not a Christian so I'll skip the part that isn't addreesed to me.
I do note that in yourc prescription for Christ like behavior you seem quick to tell Gay people that what they are doing is wrong rather than waiting around for these gay people to see Christ in you and magically accept your opionon. Shouldn't you just shut up about their dislike of homophobia and only discuss things you have in common?

It is amusing that you see vast hordes of supporters who want to jump on a bandwagon. I see a few and a much larger group that don't say very much but are appalled by the homophobia of the churches toward their friends who are gay. They seem to leave the church rather than sitting around stifling the meaningful debate about god knows what that so eager to have and yelling about homophobia. These are all people who have been convinced even though most of them started with the homophobic view and were convinced it was nonsense. They aren't afraid to label their former view (if they had one) as homophobic.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
There you go again, Louise, writing thoughtful and cogent arguments. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
And I see now that I cross-posted with Palimpsest, who was also laying out clear arguments.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And I see now that I cross-posted with Palimpsest, who was also laying out clear arguments.

Thank you but I should try to emulate Louise's conciseness. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I was just reading Amina Wadud's blog and--wow. this conversation is happening everywhere.:

quote:
Once I started meeting out Muslims from the gay community, I also learned that they were most often told they had to make a choice. Either be gay, lesbian, or whatever their sexual orientation, or be Muslim. In fact, they were barred from having access to Allah through customs, families, communities, mosques, and the institutions constructed in the name of Islam. That’s not possible.

No one can intercede between a believer and Allah.

That’s when I knew the opposition was clearly in the wrong, no matter what interpretations they claim to follow. When you cannot simply say, well I disagree, or even, I think it is wrong; but then the matter is between the person and Allah. When your disagreement must put you between a person and Allah, you have just sunk as low as you can go. Nothing you can say or do would exonerate your perspective in my mind.

Full article here.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So when you ask "are you opposed for the right of those who oppose allowing gays to marry to pass laws preventing that" I say, yes I am, by exercise of the fairness doctrine.

But I asked no such question: I asked whether some posters were opposed to allowing opponents of gay marriage to voice that opposition, even if wrong and even at the risk of influencing others to oppose it themselves. It seems as if in the US the Supreme Court has ruled that not opening marriage up to include same-sex couples would be intrinsically unfair, thus trumping individual state legislatures' decisions to keep the status quo ante. Did I get that right? Alright then - if that floats in the US sobeit. But why - especially when the USSC can overturn legislation that prohibits or same-sex marriage - should opponents be expected to keep out of any legislative debates about it? Surely their attempts to shape the law will be frustrated anyway, if your analysis is true.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The states that have allowed Gay Marriage for a few years such as Massachusetts have seen the opposition fade away.

I don't see the relevance of this fact. Surely attempts to prevent the extension of marriage to same-sex couples once they have actually failed will stop - which could account for the opposition "fading away".
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You may term that "anti-free expression" but we have lots of 'anti-free expression" in our laws.

I don't: it is obviously not anti-free expression, so long as everyone still has the right to express their legislatively vanquished opinions and as long as everyone still has the right to debate the constitution that vanquisehd them.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
There's a big difference between personally thinking opinions are immoral and the question of how far they should be legally expressed in a democracy, but it's an entirely different question as to how far people who express anti-gay views should be able to get away without anyone mentioning the word 'homophobe' or 'homophobic'

In a liberal democracy, the "anti-gay" crowd should be able to "get away" without anyone countering them with labels at all. But it should be a rule of civil discourse that both sides afford the other the respect due to deeply interested and sincere expressions of opinion without either side trying to shut the other up by mere abuse. I may have to accept that the label "homophobic" (with all its overtones of nasty hatred and bigotry) is the accepted term used by those who oppose Catholic taching in this area to describe the content of that teaching and those who hold to it. But I don't have to like it or think it a fair one.

Alas, that's all I'll have time for today.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
Why is there such a need to confront everyone with their "sin" when God is the one who defines the sin for each individual and does the convicting? Why the need to legislate everyone else's behavior according to your personal definition of sin? (General, not specific you)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But why - especially when the USSC can overturn legislation that prohibits or same-sex marriage - should opponents be expected to keep out of any legislative debates about it?

Because we are not a theocracy. Imposing religious rules on the country as a whole is a breach of the establishment clause.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In a liberal democracy, the "anti-gay" crowd should be able to "get away" without anyone countering them with labels at all.

Just quickly to correct a typo: that "should" should read "shouldn't".
quote:
Originally posted by niteowl:
Why is there such a need to confront everyone with their "sin" when God is the one who defines the sin for each individual and does the convicting? Why the need to legislate everyone else's behavior according to your personal definition of sin?

As far as I'm concerned, there is usually no "need to confront everyone with their sin" and certainly it wouldn't usually be any of my business to confrion gay people over what I might consider theirs. And I'm certainly not trying to legislate everyone else's behaviour. In the UK, those who want to introdusce legislation are pro gay marriage: to alter the legal definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Catholics are not stopping them merely by pointing out what they consider to be the potential harm of doing so.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But why - especially when the USSC can overturn legislation that prohibits or same-sex marriage - should opponents be expected to keep out of any legislative debates about it?

Because we are not a theocracy. Imposing religious rules on the country as a whole is a breach of the establishment clause.
It's a theocracy if Catholics have the same rights as everyone else to attempt to influence legislation through free speech and association? Wow. I'd hoped there'd be more papal processions, priestly bling and auto da fe: I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I can have (a little) sympathy here for the Catholic case because I live in a state where an outrageously named "Death with Dignity" referendum just barely failed last year. I don't care if people think suicide is a free choice, I think it is evil.

If only a little- I still disagree with it.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Zach82: I don't care if people think suicide is a free choice, I think it is evil.
Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but I agree that it is evil. However, these forums usually aren't about the right to choose suicide, they are about the right to demand society's assistance for suicide. I am pontifically against that.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Zach82: I don't care if people think suicide is a free choice, I think it is evil.
Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but I agree that it is evil. However, these forums usually aren't about the right to choose suicide, they are about the right to demand society's assistance for suicide. I am pontifically against that.
I see, then, our position with this issue as roughly the same as Chester's with marriage. Who are we to impose our understanding of right and wrong one other people's freedom? People with votes, that's who.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Catholics are not stopping them merely by pointing out what they consider to be the potential harm of doing so.

And yet they (along with all the other homophobes) are manifestly unable to articulate what that harm actually is.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Chesterbelloc,

Liberal Democracy. You keep using those words, I do not think you know what they mean.

quote:
Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual.

 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Catholics are not stopping them merely by pointing out what they consider to be the potential harm of doing so.

And yet they (along with all the other homophobes) are manifestly unable to articulate what that harm actually is.
They've actually been pretty clear- hell and all that, which isn't a threat just because someone decides it is so for oneself.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Forgive me if I am processing the information poorly or missing sarcasm; but could you outline what actual harm gay marriage represents? Well, no, you cannot do that here, so a link to a post which describes this? Or we can pop down to DH and discuss. All I am getting so far, is "My religion thinks it is icky, so I want to take away your rights, regardless of your religious belief". Adn that, my friend, is on the first page of the douchebag primer.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Wow, lilBuddha. It must have been pretty hard to miss the fact that I actually disagree with the RC position concerning gay civil unions. However did you manage it?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yet they (along with all the other homophobes) are manifestly unable to articulate what that harm actually is.

They've actually been pretty clear- hell and all that, which isn't a threat just because someone decides it is so for oneself.
If the risk of post-death damnation is the only harm that might be caused, then it's no reason to prevent equality legislation from being passed. None whatsoever.

Now, if there's any real harm that might be caused, that might be a different matter. Anyone?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I think damnation is real harm, and so do Catholics.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Wow, lilBuddha. It must have been pretty hard to miss the fact that I actually disagree with the RC position concerning gay civil unions. However did you manage it?

No, you said they were clear. I wanted more details. I opined their opinion was douchy, I did not say you were. If you are going to be all prickly, please read for context.

As to the damnation thing, that is rubbish, even within the confines of Rome. And again, no right to impose this on other religious views.
Please see Louise' excellent post on this.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think damnation is real harm, and so do Catholics.

Well sure, but they don't campaign for, say, atheism to be banned on the grounds that it will cause spiritual harm to anyone who practices it. What's the difference?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I honestly don't care, Marvin. I was contesting one particular point you were making. As I keep saying, I disagree with the RCC on this one, and however clear the point may be, I am not going to bother defending it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's a theocracy if Catholics have the same rights as everyone else to attempt to influence legislation through free speech and association? Wow. I'd hoped there'd be more papal processions, priestly bling and auto da fe: I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest.

If Catholics impose Catholic morality on the country, whether through legislation or some other means, they are breaching the establishment clause. You seem to want not to talk about the establishment clause, and would rather make jokes than deal with it. Maybe some time spent trying to understand the US constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on the First Amendment might be in order?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
1. Chesterbelloc lives in a country with an established religion.

2. The RCC proposes a non-religious, ethical case against gay marriage.

Just the disclaimer I have to keep saying, I am not saying the argument is a good one, just that we should look at the real argument and stop arguing past Chester and all that.

[ 27. August 2013, 16:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

2. The RCC proposes a non-religious, ethical case against gay marriage.


And this is?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Catholics are not stopping them merely by pointing out what they consider to be the potential harm of doing so.

And yet they (along with all the other homophobes) are manifestly unable to articulate what that harm actually is.
They've actually been pretty clear- hell and all that, which isn't a threat just because someone decides it is so for oneself.
Which brings us back to the realisation that we're dealing with a blasphemy argument in modern dress. What would have been described in the past as a sacrilegious assault on the sacred institution of marriage which would imperil immortal souls* is now being packaged as 'redefinition of marriage'. All that has changed is that in religiously pluralist states you can't call it that and have any prospect of political success. In non-secular, non religiously-pluralist states, when people propose freedom of worship for a group stigmatised by the dominant religion, nobody bothers to tap-dance around this - it's blasphemy which is displeasing to God and which therefore should be illegal by the law of the land - end of story.

Will come back to Chesterbelloc's argument later.


* and probably still is where PR to a secular pluralist electorate isn't at stake
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Perhaps while secular marriage looked a lot like the Catholic sacramental kind, Catholics could think that society was abiding by its precepts even if it didn't mean to. Now they're discovering that that isn't the case, how deep the indifference goes, and, by inference, how long nobody has been listening.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I'm not sure secular marriage ever looked that much like Catholic sacramental marriage as laid out on this thread, not generally.
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Not really, but while it had that prohibition which had no secular justification, there was still a link.

I may be completely wrong, I just wondered if perhaps that is part of the impact.

[ 27. August 2013, 18:26: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's a theocracy if Catholics have the same rights as everyone else to attempt to influence legislation through free speech and association? Wow. I'd hoped there'd be more papal processions, priestly bling and auto da fe: I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest.

If Catholics impose Catholic morality on the country, whether through legislation or some other means, they are breaching the establishment clause.
1. Not being an American, I didn't immediately recognise the term "establishment clause", so I just googled it. Very interesting, as it happens. As far as I can see, no Catholic either side of the Pond is arguing for "preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another." Just for people of all or no religion to be permitted to make their case in the public sphere for or against particular changes of legislation - however seemingly crazy or unpopular that case may seem.

2. I don't know how many times I have to make this point, but I'm not quite at the end of my yether just yet, so: Catholics expressing their opinion on potential changes to legislation and seeking to persuade others to accept their opinions is NOT "imposing Catholic morality on the country", is NOT incompatible with a healthy democracy, and is not any different from other interest groups fighting in the other direction. It is, I suppose, up to the lawyers to decide whether such changes - or the refusal to make them - are compatible with the constitution. [As it happens, neither the EU nor the UN seem yet to have decreed that member states have the obligation to introduce legislation for same-sex marriage on pain of depriving their citizens of their rights. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that.] But how conducive to a healthy democracy would it be to prevent Catholics from having any influence on the drafting of laws? Are there any other groups from who you would remove this right? Can you think of any negative consequences of doing so?

Finally, let me ask you again: do you really think it's a "theocracy" if Catholics have the same rights as everyone else to attempt to influence legislation through free speech and association?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to want not to talk about the establishment clause, and would rather make jokes than deal with it. Maybe some time spent trying to understand the US constitution and SCOTUS decisions based on the First Amendment might be in order?

[Roll Eyes] You really do take the fucking biscuit, don't you, mousethief? Remember when I was asked about where the hypocrisy and the sanctimony I called out earlier was?

Since mousethief isn't the only person in the room, I'll just briefly say something about the harm issue.

Zach is right that, ultimately, the worst kind of harm the Catholic Church conceives of is the kind that consists in being damned. Not to be winked at, that one. But most of the things that can get you damned (according to Catholics) result in real harm in this life too. One harm that the Catholic Church believes can result from the law defining marriage between a man and a woman and same sex marriage as being identical (i.e. the same thing) is that there are unique properties - spiritual and natural - which belong to the former that don't belong to the latter. Unique properties which advance the good of society through providing these benefits to children of such unions, so that they have a greater chance of becoming the balanced and healthy individuals that society needs to flourish. Another is that the Church believes we need the truth in order to flourish - it will set us free - and that it is simply not true to say that gay and staright unions are equivalent, and it harms people to be made to believe and say it.

Now just forget about the content of those beliefs for a moment - it really doesn't matter whether you beleive the Catholic Church is right about that for the purposes of this particular point. Call it bullshit if you like and fight against the ideology of it all you care to. That's just fine. But it is a conception of actual harm/benefit which is not just about "the life of the world to come" and it is sincerely held by many Catholics and non-Catholics. Please afford us the right to be wrong about this, as we accept the right of everyone else to be wrong.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Please afford us the right to be wrong about this, as we accept the right of everyone else to be wrong.

But. You. Do. NOT. Believing homosexual marriage is wrong, is your right. Even preaching it within the walls of your churches is your right. Attempting to influence legislation which affects people outside of your belief system is not "accept(ing) the right of everyone else to be wrong". It is imposing your moral standard on others.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Which is why I think the State should get out of the marriage business. Provide civil unions for all that legal goodness about inheritance, adoptions, hospital visits and all that. If people want to get married, they can go to the temple of their deity to receive whatever ontological status their faith deems conferrable on the union.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Damn straight.


Well, you know, for certain values of straight.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Please afford us the right to be wrong about this, as we accept the right of everyone else to be wrong.

But. You. Do. NOT. Believing homosexual marriage is wrong, is your right. Even preaching it within the walls of your churches is your right. Attempting to influence legislation which affects people outside of your belief system is not "accept(ing) the right of everyone else to be wrong". It is imposing your moral standard on others.
Give up, lilBuddha. Chester can't hear this message. But thanks for trying.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Which is why I think the State should get out of the marriage business. Provide civil unions for all that legal goodness about inheritance, adoptions, hospital visits and all that. If people want to get married, they can go to the temple of their deity to receive whatever ontological status their faith deems conferrable on the union.

But at this point you're just arguing about the definition of a word. The state does provide civil unions for all that legal goodness; it's just that it calls them "marriages." Unfortunately that's the same word that churches use for the sacrament of joining together before God. Much of this fight can be seen as arguing for exclusive possession of an 8-letter English word.

[ 27. August 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Ooops. did not read Zach82's post clearly.
Marriage, by its definition, is not tied to religion. Fuck civil unions. I have stated before, and will likely need to again, it is no different than "separate but equal" Ask any Black Southern American how that works out.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Don't be silly. It's not separate but equal. In my proposed system, absolutely everyone can have any sort of marriage they like. They can have a dozen or two if they like, because every part of marriage that doesn't deal with legal issues is none of the state's damn business.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Then call all such unions marriage. Why differentiate?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I don't see the state as having anything to confer but those legal entitlements. I don't need the state to validate my marriage, though, since my marriage was conferred by the Church, and could have conferred it no matter what the State had to say about the matter.

[ 27. August 2013, 20:48: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The state is the only common denominator in marriage. Your religious ceremony is only valid outside your church's walls because the state recognises it.
Once again, for clarity, religion has no monopoly on marriage; not the word, not its origins not its meaning.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
My marriage is recognized by God and His Church, and frankly I don't care if the state recognizes that. What I need from the state are some legal rights, and as it stands the state extends me those legal rights. I think homosexual couples should be extended those rights.

But I can't see why they or anyone else needs the state to recognize their marriages. Homosexuals have actually been able to marry for a long time in denominations like the Unitarian Universalist Church.

[ 27. August 2013, 21:05: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
Chesterbelloc, do you believe that the position that all Roman Catholic marriages should be declared null and void because clearly what the Roman Catholic Church believes marriage is is incompatable with the beliefs of secular society?

Are we allowed under the freedom of conscience and freedom of taking political positions you espouse to discuss how all Roman Catholics in any sort of standing are either virgins or adulterers or fornicators?

Are we free to discuss how this is not impinging on peoples freedom? That any Roman Catholic who wants is free to have a secular marriage as long as they deny the Roman Catholic Church?

Is there any problem if we discuss how Roman Catholics in Roman Catholic marriages deserve to be literally tortured? For ever with no hope of parole?

Is there any problem if people who hold these beliefs are given regular platforms on the national TV and radio just because they hold these beliefs?

Because every single one of these positions is one that people who believe in Roman Catholic marriage hold with respect to gay marriage. Is it fine to discuss all of them, and to have them all debated in parliament?

And if a large group of people in all seriousness were to press for legislation following the above points what would your response be? Can you tell me sincerely that you would be saying that they were simply "expressing their opinion on potential changes to legislation and seeking to persuade others to accept their opinions"? And that attempting to even shout them down and point out that they were anti-Catholic bigots would be harmful to democracy?

Can you sincerely, honestly, and openly tell me that you would be find with the agenda I've listed being expressed as a mainstream part of society? Because that, as near as I can make it is exactly the line you think should be fine to be expressed by Roman Catholics in good standing with respect to gay people.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
There's a big difference between personally thinking opinions are immoral and the question of how far they should be legally expressed in a democracy, but it's an entirely different question as to how far people who express anti-gay views should be able to get away without anyone mentioning the word 'homophobe' or 'homophobic'

In a liberal democracy, the "anti-gay" crowd should be able to "get away" without anyone countering them with labels at all. But it should be a rule of civil discourse that both sides afford the other the respect due to deeply interested and sincere expressions of opinion without either side trying to shut the other up by mere abuse. I may have to accept that the label "homophobic" (with all its overtones of nasty hatred and bigotry) is the accepted term used by those who oppose Catholic teaching in this area to describe the content of that teaching and those who hold to it. But I don't have to like it or think it a fair one.

Alas, that's all I'll have time for today.

That's not the way debate works in a democracy. That rule of civil discourse that you might have in your cloister theological quibbles only applies within the legislative process. Being labeled a homophobe is a perfectly legitimate part of that debate outside of the rules of decorum of the legislative chambers. Free expression means you get to use your influence to try to pass legislation. Free expression also mean you also have to pay the price of being described by your political opponents when you are a participant in politics and not some aloof arbiter. The Mormon Church learned this recently when they funded Proposition 8 in California and were not happy at the way they were portrayed by those on the other side of the campaign. They've been back pedaling ever since on political involvement in this issue.
The liveliness of the democratic debate is nothing new to judge from the production of Lysistrata I went to recently. We may lack the elegance of the phrase "The Lioness and the Cheese Grater" but identifying the opposition and ridiculing them and their position is standard fare in a democracy. What you're missing is the former deference given to your favorite religious professionals. Since a large number of people no longer are members of your religion, they get the same lack of respect as everyone else.

Religious participation is a major issue in the United States. The Republican Party is trying to cope with the consequences of a binge where they took power by alliances that denounced Blacks, Immigrants, Homosexuals, Feminists and those opposed to the rule of religion. In the process they seem to be transforming themselves a minority regional party. However by supporting this party the Church has moved into the hot zone.

There's been a stream of invective against gays for decades including by the Catholic Church. "Objectively disordered and inclined toward evil". You think that qualifies as the level of respect due to deeply interested and sincere participants in civil discussion? There is a stench of hypocrisy in your complaints about civility in public discourse by gay people while ignoring the long history of actions and invective by the Church.

You don't like the word homophobe because it does lumps Catholic teaching with many of the other actions having nasty overtones of hatred and bigotry. Especially from the point of those of us who aren't Catholic, Catholic attempts to prevent Same Sex Marriage, or prevention of anti gay violence being classified as a hate crime, pragmatically come down to attempts to damage our lives. You can make your argument that we should think it's better for us, but so far we're not buying it or buying that you should have any say in our lives. You're going to have a hard sell that your theological motivation for these actions make it worth separating you from the others who damage gay people.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Zach82,
It is marriage, plain and simple. State or church. Any separation of terms is bollocks. If you do not care what the state does, why care if their ceremonies are called marriage?

[ 27. August 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Zach82,
It is marriage, plain and simple. State or church. Any separation of terms is bollocks. If you do not care what the state does, why care if their ceremonies are called marriage?

I got the marriage that I think counts. In what I propose, everyone can get whatever marriage they think counts.

What, really, do you want? Why do you think the State has to recognize how special and solemn people's chosen matches are?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Please afford us the right to be wrong about this, as we accept the right of everyone else to be wrong.

But. You. Do. NOT. Believing homosexual marriage is wrong, is your right. Even preaching it within the walls of your churches is your right. Attempting to influence legislation which affects people outside of your belief system is not "accept(ing) the right of everyone else to be wrong". It is imposing your moral standard on others.
Ok. This is basic, beyond-which-the-spade-is-turned stuff. So let me get this right, lilBuddha. People who argue that same-sex marriage is preceisely equivalent to heterosexual marriage and must therefore be accorded precisely the same status under the law are (in that respect at least) "people outside my belief structure", and they are "attempting to influence legislation which affects" everybody in the state in question, including Catholics: to that extent it is "imposing their moral standards on others". I absolutely respect their right to attempt to influence legislation in this way. But somehow Catholics (and those who share their opinion) should not be allowed that right? Is that your argument? If so, please tell me how that is not blatant discrimination against their civil rights.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Zach,
From my POV, it is your commitment to your spouse which matters most. Your God is of no direct importance to me. The state matters in regards to legal concerns.
You keep out of my bedroom and I will refrain from entering yours. Just don't tell anyone with a lifestyle different than yours what they can or cannot do, and we are cool.

[ 27. August 2013, 21:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Chestbelloc,
Exactly how are same-sex marriage proponents attempting to impinge upon your rights?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Because your belief is being used to impact on the options for other people in such a way as to limit their civil rights.

As a Catholic, you can believe that their marriages are not properly constituted religious marriages and choose not to hold SSM in your churches, but you can't disallow equality whether it be to different races, genders or sexualities when society has decreed that those equalities exist. Your civil rights only appertain to your beliefs and what you do in your churches, not to what happens in society as a whole, when it impacts on other people detrimentally.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If a large group of people in all seriousness were to press for legislation following the above points what would your response be? Can you tell me sincerely that you would be saying that they were simply "expressing their opinion on potential changes to legislation and seeking to persuade others to accept their opinions"? And that attempting to even shout them down and point out that they were anti-Catholic bigots would be harmful to democracy?

Why is is so difficult for you to believe that I would accept that such people had the right to make their case in all the ways I have defended the right of Catholics to make theirs? Are you so committed to the idea that I must be bigottedly inconsistent?

I admit that I think they would be on the side of evil in doing so, but in the kind of democracy in which most of us live, I absolutely accept that they have the right to do so. I have enough faith in the decency of the British populace to think that they wouldn't be successful in their aims, as you no doubt believe is the case in the redefining of marriage to accomodate same-sex couples.

Attempting to shout them down would be fine so long as the state acknowledged and upheld their right to be heard in the final analysis: let those who attempt to shout down the Catholic position on gay marriage also be allowed to attempt to do so, so long as they do so within the existing structures of the law. But I do not in general advocate such shouting-down tactics as they are inimical to civil debate, upon which I think liberal democracies depend for their proper functioning. I'd also like to think that Catholics would have the right to call such poeple bigotted, but would hope we'd use that term as sparingly as the circumstances allowed.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chestbelloc,
Exactly how are same-sex marriage proponents attempting to impinge upon your rights?

By forcing us to accept that such unions are precisely identical to marriage, by law. Why would that be so bad? Think discrimination law here...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I'm sorry, chesterbelloc, that is stupid.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
I think the point is, Chesterbelloc, that legalising SSM gives people who want to marry their same-sex partner a right which they don't currently have. For those who wish SSM to remain illegal, what right are they seeking for themselves? ISTM they are simply seeking to deny a right to others, the exercise of which would have no impact on them (as far as I can discern). And that is unjust, IMO.

Mousethief had it right a few posts upthread; this is basically an argument over the ownership of the word and concept 'marriage'. Why not just call the state bit 'civil partnership' and then, like Zach82 said, let people have their own celebration (sober ceremony or wild party, as you wish really!) within their family, neighbourhood, faith community or whatever.

Unless, of course, anyone can posit some clear harm to society that would result if SSM is legalised (or that has resulted in places where SSM has already been legalised). In the absence of any such evidence, I simply don't see the justification for denying same-sex couples the right to have their partnership recognised by the country they live in. We Christians don't own marriage, simple as that.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chestbelloc,
Exactly how are same-sex marriage proponents attempting to impinge upon your rights?

By forcing us to accept that such unions are precisely identical to marriage, by law. Why would that be so bad? Think discrimination law here. As Curiosity has just said:
quote:
you can't disallow equality whether it be to different races, genders or sexualities when society has decreed that those equalities exist.


[ 27. August 2013, 22:24: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The same way CofE churches have to opt into marrying divorcés now - and that has been the case for a number of years.

Well that was responding to part of the post above from Chesterbelloc that he's removed about his church being allowed not to marry same sex couples.

I will add, that those churches choosing to refuse same sex marriages may find themselves becoming progressively more irrelevant. People who are not prepared to be a part of these churches are leaving now.

[ 27. August 2013, 22:28: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why not just call the state bit 'civil partnership' and then, like Zach82 said, let people have their own celebration (sober ceremony or wild party, as you wish really!) within their family, neighbourhood, faith community or whatever.

Good question, Kevin. Why is that not a good compromise? It was, after all, what we were told was going to happen when the whole gay marriage issue began to roll. Don't worry, we were told, gay couples will be accorded full civil rights, but it's just crazy scaremongering to say that you will be forced to accept they are married next. Civil partnership gives gay couples all they reasonably request - much of which many Catholics were glad to see them get. I still think that civil partnership was so reasonable an idea that it was a mistake to restrict it to those who were in a sexual relationship, but.

So some Catholics (though not all) swallowed whatever reservations they had about that and quietly saw civil partnership legislation pass without protest in the belief that this was all they were being told justice required. And now? We're "different but equal" bigots for protesting.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
You try my patience Chester. You do not have to accept anything. Sit in your little box and believe what the hell you wish. The only hardship incurred is your right to oppress others.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
those churches choosing to refuse same sex marriages may find themselves becoming progressively more irrelevant. People who are not prepared to be a part of these churches are leaving now.

Well, although it would sadden me to see anyone leave, if they leave on those grounds after having had the Church's teaching on this matter adequately explained to them, that will not leave my conscience striken: one may not do wrong that good may come of it, and all that. But it will be sad, and I'd hope that they would return in due course.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You try my patience Chester. You do not have to accept anything. Sit in your little box and believe what the hell you wish. The only hardship incurred is your right to oppress others.

For how long do you think I would be allowed the right to teach my children that same-sex unions, however good they may be and whatever the state may call them, are not equivalent to marriage? In my job, people may marry on the premises: for how long do you think I would be allowed on conscience grounds to opt out of facilitating at such ceremonies for same-sex couples?

This could be my last post for a while, by the way: my other half is feeling ever so slightly widowed by my participation on this thread, and I have a duty to my employer too.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Civil partnership gives gay couples all they reasonably request - much of which many Catholics were glad to see them get. I still think that civil partnership was so reasonable an idea that it was a mistake to restrict it to those who were in a sexual relationship, but.

That 'reasonably' in your first sentence is a bit of a weasel word, I'd say... From what I gather, the UK civil partnership does not give exactly the same rights as marriage; and that is why many gay people think the current UK situation is unjust. What's the argument for same-sex couples not being able to formalise their partnership on exactly the same basis as opposite-sex couples?

Call it 'civil partnership' for same-sex and opposite-sex if you like. I think that would be a reasonable concession to opponents of SSM; after all, what's in a name? For me, the key thing is that the state is blind as to the gender of the two people involved. I simply don't see any basis for an argument against this.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
That 'reasonably' in your first sentence is a bit of a weasel word, I'd say...

That bit was meant to be a "quote" from what people were telling us at the time, Kevin. Sorry for not making that clear.
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
Chesterbelloc, do you not have any racists in the UK? We have plenty over here and they're allowed to teach their children whatever nasty things they want. They can even call black people nasty names to their face. They just can't discriminate in a business or government matter. In the US we sorted it out in the courts decades ago- when I was a kid the Klan even had children's summer camps and no one intervened.

In other words we (in the US at least) have precedent for parents with societally unacceptable opinions to still have normal parental rights.

About the marriage at your workplace thing, are you currently allowed to opt out of other weddings that are against Catholic doctrine- divorcees with living spouses, for example, or infertile people? Because if you are, then presumably you can opt out of gay weddings as well. If you DO facilitate the weddings of divorced people, and you're just kicking up a fuss about Teh Gayz, then you're a fucking hypocrite.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chestbelloc,
Exactly how are same-sex marriage proponents attempting to impinge upon your rights?

By forcing us to accept that such unions are precisely identical to marriage, by law. ...
But you are not forced to accept anything or do anything. It is the law of the land, but you yourself will never be forced to marry anyone other than the person of your choice. You do not have to buy wedding presents for same-sex couples or go to their wedding receptions. You do not have to hold their weddings in your church. You can ignore the wedding announcements in the papers and not honk your horn when the wedding party drives by.

Now, if you were running, say, an insurance company, then you would have to recognize all legal marriages of your policy holders, not just the marriages you approve of. But that is already the case: insurance companies already recognize all legal marriages, regardless of whether they're first cousins or divorcees, inter-faith or no faith, Elizabeth Taylor's marriages, or a marriage celebrated by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas.

You still have the right to say, "you`re not really married, you know" to couples that are not validly married in your opinion, which you have always had. You have never had the right to prevent people who are not part of your faith community from entering into what you believe are invalid marriages or deny them legal recognition by the state.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For how long do you think I would be allowed the right to teach my children that same-sex unions, however good they may be and whatever the state may call them, are not equivalent to marriage?

You mean the way the state forbids Catholic parents from telling their children that divorcees are not allowed to remarry? How long has the state been allowing divorce and remarriage, and yet hasn't put gag orders on Catholic parents or priests? This kind of paranoia is bordering on conspiracy theory cloud cuckoo land.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You try my patience Chester. You do not have to accept anything. Sit in your little box and believe what the hell you wish. The only hardship incurred is your right to oppress others.

For how long do you think I would be allowed the right to teach my children that same-sex unions, however good they may be and whatever the state may call them, are not equivalent to marriage? In my job, people may marry on the premises: for how long do you think I would be allowed on conscience grounds to opt out of facilitating at such ceremonies for same-sex couples?

This could be my last post for a while, by the way: my other half is feeling ever so slightly widowed by my participation on this thread, and I have a duty to my employer too.

Eeesh. I didn't previously think you were a homophobe, Chesterbelloc, but you actually do want to discriminate against people in your job and you want to do the whole scaremongering 'Wont someone think of the children? Next stop the thought police!' thing? Acts have been passed gradually giving women equal rights to men for years - police arrests/social work raids of my fundamentalist protestant kin for teaching male headship to their kids are still nil.

But if it's that important to you, you could do what my relatives in the Brethren do who don't like computers, school plays, gay people, sex education or the teaching of evolution - they homeschool or withdraw children from classes and events they don't like. They also object on grounds of conscience to serving alcohol - so if they worked somewhere and alcohol serving was introduced, they'd leave. That's what people do when they want to make a religious testimony about what they believe and shake off the dust of the Godless world.

But to want to do that whole fundy 'I refuse to partake in your ungodliness' testimony thing against gay people who love each other and who have committed to each other... who you must know by now, as you're an intelligent person, are ordinary harmless people just like you... sorry Chesterbelloc, that's just awful. I didn't think you were like that.

I often do deliberately, outside Hell, substitute the term anti-gay when I think someone is arguing in good faith and I don't want to push their buttons, but if people want to go down the route of scaremongering and refusing to serve gay people at work at a wedding venue then in my book, yes that's homophobia and quibbling about suffixes is redundant.

It's your right to be homophobic, and it's your right to not like it that I say so, but quite frankly I've never come across someone online who quibbled about that suffix who wouldn't go on to post nakedly homophobic stuff or who hadn't just done so. I thought you were about to prove me wrong because I would have previously been reluctant to apply the term to you until that last post, but there you go.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Perhaps a sidebar bitchfest here: In my church body, when we had our last major round of human-sexuality slap-fighting, what got eventually worked out was a statement on said subject that, without endorsing legal marriage equality per se or even church commitment services for same-sex couples, affrimed the inclusion of LGBT people in the life of the Church, including as partnered pastors and rostered lay leaders. At the same time it affirmed the idea that Christians can and do in good cosncience disagree on important issues, and made room for individuals and congregations who weren't happy with the decision to not have to accept said pastors/lay leaders. The verbiage "bound conscience," used in other contexts in our theological neck of the woods, got appropriated as a buzzword for these dissenting church members/congregations.

Now, this compromise, like all organizational compromises, left most polarized people dissatisfied to one degree or the other. But the most whining by far has come from the dissenting side, who are certain that they're being treated like redheaded stepchildren by the rest of the denomination. Spokespeople for this side are constantly talking about their "pain" and "anguish" over the sexuality debates in the denomination. Thing is -- there are many issues in our church body, from general issues of biblical interpretative methodology to the infamous worship wars to church polity matters, that people feel strongly about, that sadden and frustrate people...but the melodrama and perceived victimization and constant topic-baiting are almost always generated by the conservative dissenters, for whom nothing the other side does in terms of openness to dialogue or accomodation (short of renouncing the 2009 decision) ever seems to be enough. They have their accomodated local churches where they don't have to worry about Teh Gayz showing up for call committee interviews or commitment ceremonies; the whole issue of sanctifying legal same-sex marriages is not on the table. Some of us, including many of us who are gay, at this point want to move on and concentrate on more important matters of vision and mission in the Church; but the wailing and gnashing of teeth and insistence on expending even more of our denomination's energies on revisiting the 2009 statement, never end. It's like an endless holiday family dinner stuck between Uncle Edwin the cosspiracy theorist and Aunt Winnie the drama queen, and you want to have interesting conversations with others at the table but can't hear over the banging on about the UN black helicopters and the teary recitations of how wonderful life used to be before the family troubles.

[ 28. August 2013, 01:54: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Catholics are not stopping them merely by pointing out what they consider to be the potential harm of doing so.

Merely by pointing out... you don't think the power and influence of the people who 'merely' point out makes a difference?

In the past in this country, and I know some examples in other countries, churches would basically order their congregants how to vote in elections and in referenda. They would imply that only one vote was possible for a Christian of good standing.

That's not simply expressing a view and allowing other people to think differently. That's severe moral pressure.

I've seen examples of the Catholic Church telling people what to think on various hot political issues - not merely expressing a point of view, but expressing it in such a way as to communicate that if you don't take the same view, you're in serious trouble. Catholic politicians get threatened with excommunication.

On one level I can understand this. Your church is very much about central authority and an expectation that followers will follow central doctrine, and the logical consequence of that is that not following central doctrine means you aren't a Catholic of good standing. But don't kid yourself that the Catholic point of view is merely pointed out. It's expressed as the point of view of a behemoth organisation that is telling millions of people what they ought to think in a way that makes the 'gay lobby' look puny.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I admit that I think they would be on the side of evil in doing so, but in the kind of democracy in which most of us live, I absolutely accept that they have the right to do so. I have enough faith in the decency of the British populace to think that they wouldn't be successful in their aims, as you no doubt believe is the case in the redefining of marriage to accomodate same-sex couples.

Indeed. Now bear in mind that you are being treated exactly how I believe you would expect such fuckwits to be treated. It being pointed out that you are on the side of evil. It being pointed out that you are bigotted

quote:
Attempting to shout them down would be fine so long as the state acknowledged and upheld their right to be heard in the final analysis: let those who attempt to shout down the Catholic position on gay marriage also be allowed to attempt to do so, so long as they do so within the existing structures of the law.
And this is exactly what is happening. What are you complaining about?

quote:
But I do not in general advocate such shouting-down tactics as they are inimical to civil debate, upon which I think liberal democracies depend for their proper functioning.
You seem to be working under the delusion that you can attempt to destroy families and also literally claim that people deserve to be tortured for ever and that this can in any sense of the word be described as 'civil'. Hell is nothing more than torture porn you wish on your enemies. Back your arguments up by that (as you have, bringing up damnation) and you are into the realms of torture porn. Try to destroy families, as your position does, and you certainly aren't being civil.

And as for your tired old canard that has been debunked on this and many other threads, with gay marriage, Roman Catholics will have exactly the same right to say it's wrong as they do with divorcees marrying now.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Catholics are not stopping them merely by pointing out what they consider to be the potential harm of doing so.

And yet they (along with all the other homophobes) are manifestly unable to articulate what that harm actually is.
They've actually been pretty clear- hell and all that, which isn't a threat just because someone decides it is so for oneself.
Which brings us back to the realisation that we're dealing with a blasphemy argument in modern dress. What would have been described in the past as a sacrilegious assault on the sacred institution of marriage which would imperil immortal souls* is now being packaged as 'redefinition of marriage'. All that has changed is that in religiously pluralist states you can't call it that and have any prospect of political success. In non-secular, non religiously-pluralist states, when people propose freedom of worship for a group stigmatised by the dominant religion, nobody bothers to tap-dance around this - it's blasphemy which is displeasing to God and which therefore should be illegal by the law of the land - end of story.

Will come back to Chesterbelloc's argument later.


* and probably still is where PR to a secular pluralist electorate isn't at stake

My favourite moment in the 2008 move to provide homosexual de facto couples in Australia with all the rights of heterosexual de facto couples (and consequently, most of the rights of married couples too) was when the head of the Australian Christian Lobby let the mask slip before a Senate committee.

In desperation, having realised he wasn't getting anywhere with all his 'non-religious' arguments, he announced he was going to do something he had never done before in any of his submissions to government: quote the Bible.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The state is the only common denominator in marriage. Your religious ceremony is only valid outside your church's walls because the state recognises it.

And indeed, English-speaking countries are a bit anomalous in bothering to recognise the religious ceremony. Which I think is what Zach is getting at more or less.

However, all those countries that only recognise their own State ceremony and ignore any religious ones - most of continental Europe for example - STILL call the State ceremony 'marriage'.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chestbelloc,
Exactly how are same-sex marriage proponents attempting to impinge upon your rights?

By forcing us to accept that such unions are precisely identical to marriage, by law. Why would that be so bad? Think discrimination law here...
I don't think you understand discrimination law.

There are people who believe that women and men are not equal in all sorts of respects.

The law differs and says 'tough shit'. The Sex Discrimination Act in this country makes it unlawful to discriminate between people on the basis of gender in a large number of areas.

You don't, in general, get a free pass and a right to exercise a discriminatory opinion that women oughtn't be able to do the same things as men just because you label the opinion as a religious one. You only get a pass if the LAW gives you a pass - and it should be noted that many of the anti-discrimination laws give some kind of allowance to religious organisations in their own neck of the woods, such as employment of staff. The scope of those sorts of exemptions is often a matter of some debate.

This should be clear to you in the UK, because of the case of the Christian couple who wanted to exclude a gay couple from their B&B. They can label their opinion against a gay couple as 'religious' until the cows come home, but it's not a magic word. The law of the land doesn't provide a religious exemption when it comes to offering B&B accommodation. You can protest all you like that their religious rights are being impinged, and the law will continue to say: Tough Shit.

It is logically impossible for the law to accommodate every point of view on every subject, even the points of view that are labelled as 'religious'. There's no law at all if the law is 'you can think whatever you like and act on it'. That's simply a polite form of anarchy. Laws make decisions about what you can and cannot do. You might be able to THINK that same sex marriages are not true marriages, but if the law says that are you required IN PRACTICE to treat same sex marriages as true marriages, then either you comply with that law or you face the consequences, muttering about freedom of religion or otherwise.

[ 28. August 2013, 02:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You try my patience Chester. You do not have to accept anything. Sit in your little box and believe what the hell you wish. The only hardship incurred is your right to oppress others.

For how long do you think I would be allowed the right to teach my children that same-sex unions, however good they may be and whatever the state may call them, are not equivalent to marriage?
Pure tinfoil hat gibbering.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

In my job, people may marry on the premises: for how long do you think I would be allowed on conscience grounds to opt out of facilitating at such ceremonies for same-sex couples?

Take ye Caesar's coin, give ye Caesar allegiance.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For how long do you think I would be allowed the right to teach my children that same-sex unions, however good they may be and whatever the state may call them, are not equivalent to marriage?

The problem for you Chesterbelloc is that you will be allowed to teach your children anything you want, just as you can about second marriages. But your children are going to meet people of their own generation who are gay or have same-sex marriage parents. And they're going to look at their friends' parents and just conclude you're a homophobe.

This is why a majority of young Evangelicals in the U.S. now believe that same sex marriage is ok.
The impudence of those homosexuals living lives that prove that your teachings about marriage are cruel and false. [Big Grin]

Enjoy your future.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As I keep saying, I disagree with the RCC on this one

Hence my use of "they" rather than "you" when I replied to your post.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Actually, I'm probably going to make this my last post on this thread, because I realise that I just won't be able to keep up the exchanges and that my arguments are completely missing the mark with those who are posting. Truth is that I don't seem to have the skill and pertinacity to marshall my case persuasively and without causing offence - and without it impacting on "real life". That's scarcely doing the Catholic Church's teachings a sterling service and just seems counterproductive on all fronts.

And I'm really only posting it because I am genuinely sorry to have dismayed Louise, whom I have met in real life, and like, and who has done me acts of kindness. It actually matters to me what she thinks (which is not to say that it doesn't matter to me what other posters here think, and I'm in fact sorry if I've caused anyone any distress, but). Louise, I'm sorry to have disappointed you - I can only say in possible mitigation that I (rather obviously) come over very badly in these sorts of exchanges and that I'm as fallen as the next fellow - I may or may not be as bad as you think I am on the basis of these posts. That old chancer Samuel Beckett said something worthwhile on occasion and I hope to resemble this one: "Try. Fail. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

Pax, y'all - if you'll have it.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But. You. Do. NOT. Believing homosexual marriage is wrong, is your right. Even preaching it within the walls of your churches is your right. Attempting to influence legislation which affects people outside of your belief system is not "accept(ing) the right of everyone else to be wrong". It is imposing your moral standard on others.

I am afraid I think this is rather a silly thing to say, and this time I am not being ironic.

Regardless of the issue, Catholics have the same right to hold an opinion as anyone else, the same right to express that opinion, and the same right as any other citizen to attempt to influence legislation. Why shouldn't they have this right?

When I express a political view I am not seeking to impose my moral standard on anyone else; I am simply saying what is true for me. When the Moslems next door to me express a political view they are not seeking to impose a moral standard on anyone else; they are simply saying what is true for them.

Why should it be the case that a Roman Catholic is magically different from this, and some kind of moral tyrant, particularly when remaining faithful to Roman teachings. What exactly would we expect them to do? Believe but keep silent? Why exactly, when none of us is told the same?

I think the strength of feeling on this particular matter is clouding people's judgement somewhat. Catholics are entitled to their opinions, they are entitled to voice them, and they are indeed as entitled to be wrong as anyone else. They have less freedom of thought and attitude than people of other faiths, and must therefore struggle far more with their conscience on this matter. It would be good if we could give them the space to do so, without throwing around spurious accusations of imposed morality.

If anything the imposed morality is being attempted in the opposite direction.

[ 28. August 2013, 19:25: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The problem for you Chesterbelloc is that you will be allowed to teach your children anything you want, just as you can about second marriages. But your children are going to meet people of their own generation who are gay or have same-sex marriage parents. And they're going to look at their friends' parents and just conclude you're a homophobe.

I do not think that faithfulness to Roman Catholic teaching constitutes being homophobic.

Some of the teachings themselves may well qualify, but a devout Catholic trying to find a way to accept those teachings (as he or she must) without hurting anyone around them (as they also must) is to be pitied, not vilified, imo.

[ 28. August 2013, 19:32: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by ACR:
quote:
If anything the imposed morality is being attempted in the opposite direction.
Utter bullshit.
With your view, non-Catholics are forced to a Catholic viewpoint. With mine, Catholics can believe and practice whatever they wish, and the rest of us can practice what we wish.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by ACR:
quote:
If anything the imposed morality is being attempted in the opposite direction.
Utter ....
With your view, non-Catholics are forced to a Catholic viewpoint. With mine, Catholics can believe and practice whatever they wish, and the rest of us can practice what we wish.

I think you are mistaking what I have said for what I have not said.

With my view nobody was being forced into anything; I only said that Roman Catholics are entitled to hold opinions, to express opinions, and to be wrong if they like.

Exactly the same as you and I.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
From what I gather, the UK civil partnership does not give exactly the same rights as marriage; and that is why many gay people think the current UK situation is unjust. What's the argument for same-sex couples not being able to formalise their partnership on exactly the same basis as opposite-sex couples?

Call it 'civil partnership' for same-sex and opposite-sex if you like. I think that would be a reasonable concession to opponents of SSM; after all, what's in a name? For me, the key thing is that the state is blind as to the gender of the two people involved. I simply don't see any basis for an argument against this.

SCK, what rights do married couples have that civil partners don't? My understanding is that, legally, the two are exactly the same. The only differences are the name and the key act of the ceremony (signing the register as opposed to exchanging rings).

In the case of the Christian B&B owners who discriminated against a gay couple mentioned above, the B&B owners lost the case because the law says that civil partners have to be treated exactly the same as married couples. A heterosexual non-married couple testified that they had not been allowed to sleep in a double bed at the B&B but, as the gay couple were civil partners, that was deemed irrelevant to the case.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
SCK, what rights do married couples have that civil partners don't? My understanding is that, legally, the two are exactly the same. The only differences are the name and the key act of the ceremony (signing the register as opposed to exchanging rings).

I happened across this article a few weeks ago which detailed seven apparent differences between marriage and civil partnerships. Seems like a few clear differences to me, although I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The problem for you Chesterbelloc is that you will be allowed to teach your children anything you want, just as you can about second marriages. But your children are going to meet people of their own generation who are gay or have same-sex marriage parents. And they're going to look at their friends' parents and just conclude you're a homophobe.

I do not think that faithfulness to Roman Catholic teaching constitutes being homophobic.

Some of the teachings themselves may well qualify, but a devout Catholic trying to find a way to accept those teachings (as he or she must) without hurting anyone around them (as they also must) is to be pitied, not vilified, imo.

The people whose judgment on what hurts matters are the people who are being hurt and not people who are doing the hurtful actions. Gay people by and large think that applying the homophobic teachings of the Church is homophobic. You might want to give some examples of how to accept and practice homophobic teaching without being homophobic because they are not apparent from the current actions of the Church and its followers. It seems like an impossible escape clause you're trying to find. You are out of luck once you admit that some of the teachings qualify as homophobic.


The next generation who on the one side see their gay friends and on the other see your theory that Catholics get a free pass to apply homophobic teachings because they are being faithful and sincere.
They just see that theory as part of the nasty baggage. If you think this is me ranting you might want to read Archbishop of Canterbury: my gay marriage view can be seen as akin to racism
for how the COE position is seen by the next generation. This comes from a man who is opposing same-sex marriage.

“We have seen changes in the idea about sexuality, sexual behaviour,” he said. “We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we’re saying is incomprehensible but also think that we’re plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross injustice. We have to be real about that.”

 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The people whose judgment on what hurts matters are the people who are being hurt and not people who are doing the hurtful actions. Gay people by and large think that applying the homophobic teachings of the Church is homophobic. You might want to give some examples of how to accept and practice homophobic teaching without being homophobic because they are not apparent from the current actions of the Church and its followers. It seems like an impossible escape clause you're trying to find. You are out of luck once you admit that some of the teachings qualify as homophobic.


The next generation who on the one side see their gay friends and on the other see your theory that Catholics get a free pass to apply homophobic teachings because they are being faithful and sincere.
They just see that theory as part of the nasty baggage. If you think this is me ranting you might want to read Archbishop of Canterbury: my gay marriage view can be seen as akin to racism
for how the COE position is seen by the next generation. This comes from a man who is opposing same-sex marriage.

“We have seen changes in the idea about sexuality, sexual behaviour,” he said. “We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we’re saying is incomprehensible but also think that we’re plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross injustice. We have to be real about that.”

From the, 'If you are Not For Us, You Must be Against US' school of thought.

Perhaps it is possible to be for devout Catholics AND gay people. Bigotry is equally vile, whatever the source.

[ 29. August 2013, 06:42: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The people whose judgment on what hurts matters are the people who are being hurt and not people who are doing the hurtful actions. Gay people by and large think that applying the homophobic teachings of the Church is homophobic. You might want to give some examples of how to accept and practice homophobic teaching without being homophobic because they are not apparent from the current actions of the Church and its followers. It seems like an impossible escape clause you're trying to find. You are out of luck once you admit that some of the teachings qualify as homophobic.


The next generation who on the one side see their gay friends and on the other see your theory that Catholics get a free pass to apply homophobic teachings because they are being faithful and sincere.
They just see that theory as part of the nasty baggage. If you think this is me ranting you might want to read Archbishop of Canterbury: my gay marriage view can be seen as akin to racism
for how the COE position is seen by the next generation. This comes from a man who is opposing same-sex marriage.

“We have seen changes in the idea about sexuality, sexual behaviour,” he said. “We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we’re saying is incomprehensible but also think that we’re plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross injustice. We have to be real about that.”

From the, 'If you are Not For Us, You Must be Against US' school of thought.

Perhaps it is possible to be for devout Catholics AND gay people. Bigotry is equally vile, whatever the source.

Oh yes, one shouldn't be against people who do damage because they're faithfully following those teachings of their religion which order damage against other people. That would be Bigotry against those people who are just following the strictures of their religion to hurt other people. Why next you'll be saying mean things about the people who kill heretics because of the teachings of their faith.

You want to apply these strictures to yourself if you are Gay and Catholic as a form of devout self mutilation. Go ahead. Just don't propose applying them to other people.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Oh yes, one shouldn't be against people who do damage because they're faithfully following those teachings of their religion which order damage against other people. That would be Bigotry against those people who are just following the strictures of their religion to hurt other people. Why next you'll be saying mean things about the people who kill heretics because of the teachings of their faith.

You want to apply these strictures to yourself if you are Gay and Catholic as a form of devout self mutilation. Go ahead. Just don't propose applying them to other people.

QED.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
ACR, you're basically offering Catholics the Nuremberg Defence.

"I was only following doctrine."

[ 29. August 2013, 09:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It suffers the same problem as the parallel sexist theology (aka Girls have Cooties) - "I'm not sexist, but God is, so I have to agree with him and be against women priests" - it's a similar "I'm not homophobic, but you see, God is, so I have to agree with him and use the law to continue to oppress you and deny you your rights."

Or as Rowan Atkinson's vicar put it (and I paraphrase) "that's what God's like. He hates poofs."

It's not entirely surprising if the "I'm not bigotted but God is and I'm telling you what he thinks" is about as convincing as the special effects in a 1950s B movie.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
ACR, you're basically offering Catholics the Nuremberg Defence.

"I was only following doctrine."

I think you have seriously lost touch with reality.

Sixty years ago we discarded belief in the collective responsibility of the Jewish people for the death of the Lord, and rightly so. Are you now postulating the collective responsibility of all Catholics for all homophobia?

Belief is NOT behaviour, just as not every German was a Nazi. Beliefs where a person has very real doubts about validity are most certainly never going to be translated into hurtful behaviour by anyone.

What I am opposing is the apparent wholescale condemnation of every single Catholic on earth, for the sake of doctrines which they cannot change, and probably have never acted on in their lives. Most Catholics are good people; they do not deserve to be negatively labelled in this manner; no more than any other group of people would deserve it.

I have made a very clear divide between those doctrines, and the people who are called to believe them by their church, but who are also and equally called to love their brothers and sisters as themselves. I have said that these people are to be pitied, because they are called to achieve the impossible. To remain members of their church they are called to believe what few of us can actually believe any more.

I have never for one moment condoned homophobia of any kind, and I never would. But I also will not condone anti-Catholic bigotry.

Defending gay people and their right to peace and safety does not demand attacking any other group of people. There are plenty of gay Catholics. There are plenty of Catholics who place priority on the injunction to love others as Christ first loved them. There are plenty more who are fully accepting of gay people, and support gay rights.

Catholic and gay are not mutually exclusive terms. NOBODY deserves to be vilified, simply because of the category they happen to belong to, whether it is religion, sexual orientation, race or anything else.

Imo, anti Catholic bigotry is just as vile as anti gay bigotry, or any other kind. Bigotry is NEVER acceptable.

If that makes me the equivalent of a Nazi war criminal to you, well, I am not sure what planet you are from, but do enjoy your visit, and have a safe journey home.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It suffers the same problem as the parallel sexist theology (aka Girls have Cooties) - "I'm not sexist, but God is, so I have to agree with him and be against women priests" - it's a similar "I'm not homophobic, but you see, God is, so I have to agree with him and use the law to continue to oppress you and deny you your rights."

For the record, I do not think God is homophobic at all. If he did not like gay people he would not have given us so many of them, or given them so many fine gifts. Our lives without gay people would be far poorer; certainly mine would be.

Neither do I think God is anti Catholic, although he probably shares the discomfort of the rest of us at the results of some misguided and sometimes plain wrong Catholic doctrines. I do not think he holds ordinary Catholic people responsible for all the evils caused by those doctrines; only for their own personal sins.

Make of that whatever you wish.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
ACR, you really seem to have missed the point that Palimpsest was talking about applying beliefs. Not merely believing them in some sort of abstract, oh yes I know that's the official doctrine of the Catholic church sort of way. Actually applying them.

Because half of what you've said after that is actually in agreement with the people you think you're arguing against.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
ACR, you really seem to have missed the point that Palimpsest was talking about applying beliefs. Not merely believing them in some sort of abstract, oh yes I know that's the official doctrine of the Catholic church sort of way. Actually applying them.

Because half of what you've said after that is actually in agreement with the people you think you're arguing against.

I am not arguing against anyone. I simply stated a position, and others chose to take umbrage at that. If you look, you will see that it is they who have argued against me, and against what I have said. If they are now agreeing with me, then good for them.

My comments have been perfectly consistent all the way through. Others have chosen to read things into what I have said, and infer what I have not said, in a most entertaining way.

Clearly this topic is one which triggers very strong emotional reactions. But that does not justify unwarranted attacks on any person who has never hurt anyone, never intended to hurt anyone, and never wished to hurt anyone. And imo most Catholics would qualify under that heading. Believing that their church necessarily has the fullness of truth is not a crime, nor is it homophobia or any other such nastiness. It is a cross.

[Smile]

[ 29. August 2013, 14:12: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
But that does not justify unwarranted attacks on any person who has never hurt anyone, never intended to hurt anyone, and never wished to hurt anyone.

Well, most people are reasonably secure on limbs 2 and 3 of that test - which are basically the same thing.

It's limb number 1 that they tend to be a bit wobbly on.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
For how long do you think I would be allowed the right to teach my children that same-sex unions, however good they may be and whatever the state may call them, are not equivalent to marriage? In my job, people may marry on the premises: for how long do you think I would be allowed on conscience grounds to opt out of facilitating at such ceremonies for same-sex couples?

Eeesh. I didn't previously think you were a homophobe, Chesterbelloc, but you actually do want to discriminate against people in your job and you want to do the whole scaremongering 'Wont someone think of the children? Next stop the thought police!' thing?

...

It's your right to be homophobic, and it's your right to not like it that I say so, but quite frankly I've never come across someone online who quibbled about that suffix who wouldn't go on to post nakedly homophobic stuff or who hadn't just done so. I thought you were about to prove me wrong because I would have previously been reluctant to apply the term to you until that last post, but there you go.

Teaching Catholic values (even misguided values) to their own children, and legally opting out of certain behaviours on the grounds of conscience is NOT homophobia. In Catholic terms same sex unions are not the same as their own sacrament of marriage. Neither is Anglican marriage, for that matter; that does not make them anti Anglican. It just means that Catholic teaching is at times barking mad; our priests are not ordained, none of us is married and our children are all illegitimate. And yet Anglicans carry on year after year totally nonplussed by this teaching.

I suggest gay people do the same. It makes not a jot of difference whether the Pope thinks you are validly married or not; you know and God knows. Enjoy. But Catholics are constrained to accept the teachings of their church; they can't help it.

Catholics MUST behave within the law. Of course they must. But Christians of any denomination may reach a time when their sincere beliefs conflict with what the law says. At this point, we ask questions. Catholics have more difficult questions than most, because of the apparent inability of their faith to manage to be more than 100 years behind the times at any given point.

Chesterbelloc was asking those questions here, and being honest about them. He does not deserve to be called names as a result.

Asking questions is not homophobia. Deciding that we have all the answers and are qualified to pass judgement on gay people; call them names, sneer at them or worse, is homophobia. And very nasty stuff it is too.

I genuinely think Chesterbelloc is still wrestling with this issue, and I do not envy him one bit. But he also does not deserve to be called names.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
But that does not justify unwarranted attacks on any person who has never hurt anyone, never intended to hurt anyone, and never wished to hurt anyone.

Well, most people are reasonably secure on limbs 2 and 3 of that test - which are basically the same thing.

It's limb number 1 that they tend to be a bit wobbly on.

You are of course correct.

I ought to have said intentionally. Hurting other people is still a sin, even if unintentional, but it is a far worse sin if done on purpose. There is no justification whatever for hurting anyone because they are gay.

I can sympathise with anyone struggling to reconcile Catholic teaching on anything at all - not just this issue - with Christian love. I am sure that for most people love wins. Well, I hope so. Maybe I am just being naive.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Catholics have more difficult questions than most, because of the apparent inability of their faith to manage to be more than* 100 years behind the times at any given point.

* should have been less than. I think.

Never was very good at maths. [Smile]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Believing that their church necessarily has the fullness of truth is not a crime, nor is it homophobia or any other such nastiness. It is a cross.

That it is. But it isn't a cross in the sense of a devotional symbol or an instrument of torture. It's a cross as in a teacher marking an excercise. No one has or can have the fullness of truth. The truth is the universe and is greater than any of us or any group of us. And claiming otherwise is unjustified arrogance.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Teaching Catholic values (even misguided values) to their own children, and legally opting out of certain behaviours on the grounds of conscience is NOT homophobia.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's certainly the Nuremberg Defence. "I was only following orders - it's the orders that were bigotted, not me."

Out of curiosity, would you have said the same thing in the early-mid 19th century (or even later) about people who weren't personally racist but believed in various racist myths that originated in the bible and were preached by their churches?

It's not who you are underneath that counts. It's what you actually do. You yourself admit that some of the teachings of the RCC are homophobic. Do you openly support or openly oppose them? And if neither you tacitly support them.

quote:
In Catholic terms same sex unions are not the same as their own sacrament of marriage.
Your point?

Marriage is a civil institution. The Roman Catholic Church does not get to define the civil institution of marriage. I don't intend to ban the Roman Catholic sacrament of marriage or of baptism or of communion.

But it is a category error to say that just because the Roman Catholic Church has a sacrament it named after a civil institution they are the same thing. And the attempted redefinition of marriage as something that is fundamentally religious rather than secular. Further it is a category error to claim that Britain or America (or other countries) should follow Roman Catholic laws rather than that Roman Catholics in Britain or America should follow the intersection of the law of the land and the religious law.

I care not if your masses are white, black, or rainbow coloured. Just as long as you don't force me to participate in them (as your attempt to redefine marriage as a religious institution would do). And saying that people that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't allow to have the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Marriage can get married is nothing new. You ban divorcees from getting married and they can be married by other people. This is no different - that other people can be married by groups other than the RCC.

quote:
Chesterbelloc was asking those questions here, and being honest about them. He does not deserve to be called names as a result.
Please. Chesterbelloc was JAQing off and propogating bullshit memes that have been debunked to him personally years ago. And this is Hell.

I'm just amused by the RCC baton relay on this thread.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
But that does not justify unwarranted attacks on any person who has never hurt anyone, never intended to hurt anyone, and never wished to hurt anyone.

Well, most people are reasonably secure on limbs 2 and 3 of that test - which are basically the same thing.

It's limb number 1 that they tend to be a bit wobbly on.

You are of course correct.

I ought to have said intentionally. Hurting other people is still a sin, even if unintentional, but it is a far worse sin if done on purpose. There is no justification whatever for hurting anyone because they are gay.

I can sympathise with anyone struggling to reconcile Catholic teaching on anything at all - not just this issue - with Christian love. I am sure that for most people love wins. Well, I hope so. Maybe I am just being naive.

I'm curious how you find the natural law arguments against homosexuality. I mean the teleological argument that human sex is 'unitive and procreative', if that's the right phrase, and therefore gay sex is 'disordered'.

It strikes me that this kind of argument just does not ring any bells with most people today, and so it is a dead duck.

What do you think?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by ACR:
quote:
If anything the imposed morality is being attempted in the opposite direction.
Utter ....
With your view, non-Catholics are forced to a Catholic viewpoint. With mine, Catholics can believe and practice whatever they wish, and the rest of us can practice what we wish.

I think you are mistaking what I have said for what I have not said.

With my view nobody was being forced into anything; I only said that Roman Catholics are entitled to hold opinions, to express opinions, and to be wrong if they like.

Exactly the same as you and I.

Right. So then you've no objection to me starting a petition for a law banning Catholics getting married? This would make me like the Catholic Church.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
ACR, you're basically offering Catholics the Nuremberg Defence.

"I was only following doctrine."

I think you have seriously lost touch with reality.

Sixty years ago we discarded belief in the collective responsibility of the Jewish people for the death of the Lord, and rightly so. Are you now postulating the collective responsibility of all Catholics for all homophobia?



No, we are describing the responsibility of some Catholics for some homophobia. Unfortunately that group of some Catholics includes the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. You're trying evade descriptions of specific homophobic behavior by the church by making a straw man claiming the charge is all Catholics are homophobic. News flash, not all Catholics follow all teachings of the Church. e.g. Contraception.


quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

Belief is NOT behaviour, just as not every German was a Nazi. Beliefs where a person has very real doubts about validity are most certainly never going to be translated into hurtful behaviour by anyone.

When the Catholic Church in the State of Washington lectured in all its churches before the last state election that Catholics should vote against the state allowing Gays to get married that's NOT belief, that's hurtful behaviour. When Lennon Cihak, a teenager in Minnesota, was denied communion because he had posted a pro-gay marriage page on Facebook, that's behavior by the hierarchy which is a homophobic attempt to prevent secular marriage by Gay people.
I've already mentioned the much older behavior attempt to prevent Gays from being a protected category in the hate crime laws. That's three examples of BEHAVIOR and not just abstract belief in doctrines.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

What I am opposing is the apparent wholescale condemnation of every single Catholic on earth, for the sake of doctrines which they cannot change, and probably have never acted on in their lives. Most Catholics are good people; they do not deserve to be negatively labelled in this manner; no more than any other group of people would deserve it.


Same straw man. No one said all Catholics are homophobic. Just those who act on the orders of the hierarchy to impose their doctrines not only believers but all of secular society. There's any number of Catholics who ignore the commands of the hierarchy to do actions to impose their beliefs on non-believers. There are also plenty of Gay Catholics who ignore the theory they should have lives of involuntary celibacy and stay within the church despite continual attempts to tell them they are evil.


quote:

I have made a very clear divide between those doctrines, and the people who are called to believe them by their church, but who are also and equally called to love their brothers and sisters as themselves. I have said that these people are to be pitied, because they are called to achieve the impossible. To remain members of their church they are called to believe what few of us can actually believe any more.

I have never for one moment condoned homophobia of any kind, and I never would. But I also will not condone anti-Catholic bigotry.


You evade that by saying that the actions of the Catholic Church cannot be homophobic by (your) definition. Even when they are homophobic actions that are official policy and clearly damage Gay Catholics and Non Catholics.


quote:

Defending gay people and their right to peace and safety does not demand attacking any other group of people.

There's no reason not to attack those who attempt damaging ACTIONS such as trying to stop secular gay marriage, adding gays to the category of hate crime victim. Just because they are your friends.

quote:

There are plenty of gay Catholics. There are plenty of Catholics who place priority on the injunction to love others as Christ first loved them. There are plenty more who are fully accepting of gay people, and support gay rights.

Catholic and gay are not mutually exclusive terms. NOBODY deserves to be vilified, simply because of the category they happen to belong to, whether it is religion, sexual orientation, race or anything else.

Same strawman. No one has said ALL Catholics are homophobic. A large number are including the officials who run the church.

quote:

Imo, anti Catholic bigotry is just as vile as anti gay bigotry, or any other kind. Bigotry is NEVER acceptable.

Bigotry is acceptable to you if it's ordered by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and executed by members of the church. You just define those action of those particular Catholics as the results of an impossible situation deserving pity rather than homophobic actions deserving censure. I think they have the option of ignoring those teachings or leaving, just as their predecessors had the option of not believing the libels on Jews.


quote:

If that makes me the equivalent of a Nazi war criminal to you, well, I am not sure what planet you are from, but do enjoy your visit, and have a safe journey home.

[Smile]

You seem to throw around straw man charges of Nazi's around a lot as a rhetorical device. It's pretty tacky. You're not a Nazi, just someone who is trying to defend homophobic behavior by the Catholic Church by creating a lot of straw men or denying damaging behavior is homophobic.

I've given you three specific actions done in accordance with orders from Cardinals. Are you condoning the homophobia in the behavior? Are you going to continue to pretend it's a wholesale bigoted condemnation of all Catholics and a charge that you are guilty of Nazism to point out this is homophobic behavior? What do you think of those Catholics who fail in your assigned impossible task of reconciling the doctrine and marching orders of the Vatican and actually do damaging homophobic behavior. Do you just pity them and ignore their victims?


[EDITED to fix the problems with quoting. Orfeo, Hellhost.]

[ 30. August 2013, 14:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
I see now why it is called hell.

How delightful. [Smile]

I have said what I have said. You can all enjoy misconstruing my words as much as you like. I do so hate to spoil your fun, but my harrowing of this particular thread is over.

I do look forward to our next little chat.

[Smile]

[ 30. August 2013, 08:06: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
... When I express a political view I am not seeking to impose my moral standard on anyone else; I am simply saying what is true for me. ....

So when you express a political view, you don't actually care whether it becomes law or not (because that would be the only way to impose your moral standard.) I understand now: you just want to "say" what is "true for you". You don't really mean for it to be taken seriously when making legislation or public policy.

Good to know. Thanks!
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Truth is that I don't seem to have the skill and pertinacity to marshall my case persuasively and without causing offence

It's not just you. It's every single person on your side, whether on this forum or anywhere else.

The reason is that your side has no good arguments and is inherently offensive. The best human rhetoric may go some way to disguising those facts, but cannot change them. Thank God.


Your particular problem is a seeming inability to distinguish moral and legal rights. No matter how many times, or how patiently, or simply, or passionately, or exasperatedly the difference is explained. You just don't seem to get that people can think that denying someone the right ever to be married to the person of their choice is an incredibly shitty thing to do (which it is) and yet not want to visit any sanction on you for doing it beyond well-deserved contempt and scorn. You have the legal right to be a shit. It is still morally wrong. It is still a sin.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You just don't seem to get that people can think that denying someone the right ever to be married to the person of their choice is an incredibly shitty thing to do (which it is) and yet not want to visit any sanction on you for doing it beyond well-deserved contempt and scorn. You have the legal right to be a shit. It is still morally wrong. It is still a sin.

Eloquently put. Most of these doing this shitty thing don't want any sanction imposed at all including contempt. Hence the cries of "Help, I'm being oppressed by being called a homophobe" and Anglo Catholic Relict's claim that those following religious belief shouldn't suffer any retaliation when they damage Gay people because of their belief.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Anglo Catholic Relict's claim that those following religious belief shouldn't suffer any retaliation when they damage Gay people because of their belief.

[Smile]

I have said what I have said. And you are imagining things.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I am confused as well.
I will summarise.
You defend the position of Chesterbelloc (et al).
Chesterbelloc's position is that it is right and just to use law to impose one's religious/moral beliefs on others who do not share said beliefs.
Therefore you share the guilt and remonstrations.
Where am I wrong?
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Anglo Catholic Relict's claim that those following religious belief shouldn't suffer any retaliation when they damage Gay people because of their belief.

[Smile]

I have said what I have said. And you are imagining things.

And here I thought you'd flounced. Pity.

Palimpsest's summary of what you'd said looks pretty accurate to me.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Anglo Catholic Relict's claim that those following religious belief shouldn't suffer any retaliation when they damage Gay people because of their belief.

[Smile]

I have said what I have said. And you are imagining things.

I took the trouble to do an interlinear commentary on your repetitive and dishonest post. I gave a specific set of examples which contradicted your statements. You chose to flounce off rather than respond to the specific comments on specific sections of your posts claiming that you were just going to say what you wanted to say and not rebut criticism and repeating your charge that everyone else here is imagining things.

If you want to discuss the issues, go back to that post and respond to the specific comments. It's ludicrous to tell someone they are imaging things when they are quoting you and commenting on the quote. You can rebut their comments, they may be failing by misinterpreting, or misunderstanding or begging the question or misquoting, but to imperiously tell them they imagined the quote is not going to impress anyone who can read the thread.

You have told multiple people in this thread that they are not in the same reality as you and are imagining things. I think we can agree we don't share the same reality but you might want to consider the nature of your own reality if you keep running into people who don't share it.

Since you are not willing to address criticisms of statements you've made on this thread, I'll simply use you as an interesting example of the original focus of this thread; Concern Trolls and Cryptic Homophobes. Don't feel the need to flounce or respond or post smileys, the remainder of this post is not addressed to you.

Some concern trolls are the cryptic homophobes. They are just dishonest debaters. In some ways they are like the congressman who votes for a bill they are opposed to so they can introduce a timely reconsideration motion later since they want to exercise the privileged action is only allowed to those who voted for the motion. Similarly this type of concern troll wants to shape the debate among those seeking the goal.

Some are clearly against the goals, but think they have the right to define what is the only right way that the people who want the goals must proceed. Complaints that Steven Fry didn't have standing to propose an Olympic boycott because he wasn't an Olympic Athlete or that a Homophobic law to suppress Russian gays couldn't be opposed because it was more or less democratically voted in are examples of the concern troll thinking they have a special privilege to define rules of engagement. The extreme comic example is someone who runs around claiming a word like homosexual or homophobia doesn't exist because they don't allow it to exist.


Others like to think they are in favor of the goals, but have the attitude that they are the expert and they are in charge and everyone should listen to them. They frequently criticize anyone who is actually doing anything because their expert advice is "not now, I'll tell you when it's time." This has the odd property of sucking in people who actually have made a career of protest and think they should be in charge. Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham Jail talks about the disappointment he had in moderates who said "not now".
I've heard similar quiet disparagement from gay rights activists who thought that gay marriage was not the strategic issue to focus on and "not now" in favor of things the public might endorse. There was a similar complaint by gay activist against those doing the lawsuit against Proposition 8 in California because they thought it might get another adverse Supreme Court ruling.

These concerns were not hypocritical attempts to sabotage the goals as a cryptic homophobe would, but they show demonstrate another failure. In a democracy there doesn't have to be a single strategy or a single commander. Multiple people can try different approaches. A militant nasty fighter doesn't poison the well as much as make the moderate more attractive to those who dislike the militant. And if the militant is right significant progress can be made very quickly.

Anglo Catholic Relict is willing to excuse homophobic actions by those following the homophobic teachings of her church. This puts her in the first category of concern troll despite her disavowals that she doesn't condone homophobia.

She also thinks that the only way to deal with the homophobia is to be nice and show pity to people in this church who are struggling with homophobic teachings. It's possible that being nice and showing pity may convince some of them. However that doesn't preclude other people fighting the actions of these people in the political arena by the usual means of politics. Play nice is only one strategy among many in politics and no single strategy is always optimal. As public opinion veers to a majority in favor of gay marriage, contempt to those who don't want to allow it is a perfectly valid strategy. The US has the racial example. No serious religion in the U.S. today supports racial superiority or segregation openly even though Church is still largely segregated and only slowly integrating. This is an example of public contempt to racist statements slowly strangling racism.

Similarly there's a proposed strategy among Concern Trolls about action against Homophobia. "Oh if you yell at them for their actions you'll never get them to like you.." It would be great if they did change their minds and whole heartedly support a non-homophobic world. But it's not an all or nothing goal. To paraphrase, All it takes for Good to triumph is for bad people to do nothing. It's not the optimal goal, but it's not a bad way station.


Any other categories of concern trolls worth identifying?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actually, I'm probably going to make this my last post on this thread, because I realise that I just won't be able to keep up the exchanges and that my arguments are completely missing the mark with those who are posting. Truth is that I don't seem to have the skill and pertinacity to marshall my case persuasively and without causing offence - and without it impacting on "real life". That's scarcely doing the Catholic Church's teachings a sterling service and just seems counterproductive on all fronts.

And I'm really only posting it because I am genuinely sorry to have dismayed Louise, whom I have met in real life, and like, and who has done me acts of kindness. It actually matters to me what she thinks (which is not to say that it doesn't matter to me what other posters here think, and I'm in fact sorry if I've caused anyone any distress, but). Louise, I'm sorry to have disappointed you - I can only say in possible mitigation that I (rather obviously) come over very badly in these sorts of exchanges and that I'm as fallen as the next fellow - I may or may not be as bad as you think I am on the basis of these posts. That old chancer Samuel Beckett said something worthwhile on occasion and I hope to resemble this one: "Try. Fail. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

Pax, y'all - if you'll have it.

Sorry to take so long to get round to this. I don't like to post on something serious when I'm tired and busy with a deadline looming.

That's a very kind and gracious post, Chesterbelloc. I honestly don't know what to say. Let's have a go. I'm currently sharing the excitement of two female friends who are looking forward to their wedding to each other.

I'm closer to one than the other and she and I often compare notes as we have a lot in common in our relationships. When you do that, you get to see that same sex/opposite sex and which bit goes where really isn't what makes the difference in relationships. It doesn't determine the quality and richness of intimate relationships. My friends have a relationship that is far more like mine and my partner's, than ours is like that of our parents - who split roles along traditional gender lines. To have people say they want to discriminate against our friends but not us, because their relationship is same-sex and ours is opposite sex when both are so similar just doesn't make sense as neither they nor we are harming anyone, and we're far more alike than different.

Yes I know the history and doctrine but I can honestly hand on heart tell you that it bears no relation to anything I can see or have experienced despite knowing well a number of same-sex couples over years. Years of people trying to cite scientific and medical research against gay people to justify discrimination has turned out to be a resounding flop (quite a few fossils of that survive in the decade-long big Dead Horse thread).

So that brings us down to religious authority - the same religious authority which would say that because we've no intention of having children and my other half has been divorced that we're not allowed to marry either. Yet people who would never dream of handing out a questionaire for us to tick at a Scottish wedding venue open to the public (so they could boycott us for not sharing Catholic understandings of wedding vows) would boycott my friends. People who would never make up stuff about how our utterly non-Catholic/ invalid to all Catholic standards relationship would harm them and harm society simply because it's legal, go on to make up stuff about how our friends marriage being tolerated will lead to some kind of totalitarian state that harms children!

I'm sorry but my friends are not a menace. And it really gets to me to see them treated as such, or to see their joy and love treated as 'unclean' and to be religiously shunned, especially when me and the fella are given a pass despite being obvious and notorious sinners by the same standards.

Please reconsider. Nobody is asking you to marry another chap, or to have a wedding you think is invalid in your church, or to believe weddings to be valid which your church says are invalid. All I want is for my friends not to be treated as public menaces - that's where your statements crossed the line for me. They're not going to harm you or society. Their wedding wont harm you any more than ours would. When I go to a Catholic church I know not to go up for communion. I'm quite happy to sing and pray along even though I don't share the central belief in what happens at the eucharist. My ancestors would have gone absolutely nuts and insisted not only that I should boycott the whole business, but (go far enough back) that it shouldn't be legal - Catholics being as they saw it a menace to society. Don't be like them! Don't out-fundy the fundies. If you believe that a wedding ceremony between two harmless ordinary folks of the same sex is not valid - OK, but why the extra steps of refusing legal toleration and insisting that something you don't believe in, which is joyful and loving and harms nobody, is a menace?

It's these extra steps I'd beg you (and any others of similar views) to reconsider.

[ 01. September 2013, 20:33: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
A brief less hellish tangent:

Yesterday I want to the farm wedding of my friend Tom and his partner Larry. They've been together with legal papers giving each other control of their joint estate for ten years and have two children aged 8 and 4. Tom is escaped from a mega church Christian upbringing. Larry is Jewish and heavily involved in the small Seattle Jewish community. They discussed with me how the civil marriage status has helped in dealing with their families to accept the relationship. Tom's entire family was at the wedding, unlike their non-attencance at the earlier commitment ceremony and naming ceremonies for the children. Larry's family was all there as they all have been for all the ceremonies and have negotiated daily skype contact with the children.

I ate at a table with two friends who are also partners and we discussed the changes the civil marriage law has made. They are under pressure from their neighbor and her daughter to get married instead of being informal partners. They said that they had both never thought there would be gay marriage and hadn't thought about it as an option after coming out. Now they have to through the new challenges.
For them there seems to be a significant difference between civil unions and marriages for many gay couples.

There was an article in the New York Times about this topic of pressure from family for partners to marry. As one said, "a few years ago they told us that they would have heart attacks and die if we came out to the larger family. Now they want to know why we aren't married and making grandchildren for them." The heat is on.


A final note, I can see the wisdom now of the tradition of getting married and then having children. Done in that order you don't have the ceremony being interrupted because the four year ring bearer can't resist repeatedly throwing straw in the air underneath the rustic bridal canopy.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why not just call the state bit 'civil partnership' and then, like Zach82 said, let people have their own celebration (sober ceremony or wild party, as you wish really!) within their family, neighbourhood, faith community or whatever.

Good question, Kevin. Why is that not a good compromise? It was, after all, what we were told was going to happen when the whole gay marriage issue began to roll. Don't worry, we were told, gay couples will be accorded full civil rights, but it's just crazy scaremongering to say that you will be forced to accept they are married next. Civil partnership gives gay couples all they reasonably request - much of which many Catholics were glad to see them get.
I think international recognition is a big problem here: countries which have SSM do not IIRC recognise UK Civil Partnerships.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Here's an idea, let's call the religious mumbo-jumbo thingy "Really Real God-Approved Marriage™".


Late to this thread as have been on leave but you may be - inadvertently or otherwise - onto something: let's call what the State decides it can do "marriage", and then religious conservatives eg: the Catholic Church can call what they decide they can do something like 'Sacramental Marriage' or 'Holy Matrimony'(...?)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
That's unlikely to happen precisely for reasons hashed out on this thread - people believe that marriage is the God-ordained holy word for the God-ordained thing, and that's that.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Shame.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's unlikely to happen precisely for reasons hashed out on this thread - people believe that marriage is the God-ordained holy word for the God-ordained thing, and that's that.

These must be the same people who think that Jesus and Paul spoke King James English. The word "marriage" isn't in the Bible, the simple reason being it's an English word. (Not saying you're arguing this point, orfeo.) And of course plenty of non-Christian cultures have marriage in a mode rather similar to that of Christian countries. The theoretical underpinnings (which arguably in the Christian case are post hoc rationalizations) may be different, but the institution is not all that different.

_____
post hoc = after-the-fact
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why not just call the state bit 'civil partnership' and then, like Zach82 said, let people have their own celebration (sober ceremony or wild party, as you wish really!) within their family, neighbourhood, faith community or whatever.

Good question, Kevin. Why is that not a good compromise? It was, after all, what we were told was going to happen when the whole gay marriage issue began to roll. Don't worry, we were told, gay couples will be accorded full civil rights, but it's just crazy scaremongering to say that you will be forced to accept they are married next. Civil partnership gives gay couples all they reasonably request - much of which many Catholics were glad to see them get.
I think international recognition is a big problem here: countries which have SSM do not IIRC recognise UK Civil Partnerships.
Yes, international reciprocity is a big problem. One of the Supreme Court cases was a same sex widow who had married in Canada. Not giving her married status in the US cost her about 300,000 dollars for the house they had bought together.

It's even more complicated in the United States where some states have civil marriages, some have civil unions and some prohibit both. The U.S> Internal Revenue Service just announced that they would treat ssm partners married in a state where it's legal even if they move to a state where it's not allowed.

Walmart also announced coverage for same sex partners. Because of the (hopefully temporary) patchwork they have their own criteria which involves living together for a year.

There are many, many, laws that have bits that give rights to married couples. Amending them for a new status would be a very tedious business. It gets worse internationally.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
This brings up another flavor of concern trollery.

Having lost the battle to prevent same sex marriage in many places, the concern troll advises those who have won the victory after a decade or two of work that the best course for them is to graciously throw away the fruits of victory in a spirit of compromise and generosity.

Some of these are the cryptic homophobe variety and some are of the "If I was in charge I could offer a compromise solution" and some are the "I am in charge and the losers are my pals".

This compromise was not proposed seriously by the opponents of SSM until after it became clear that Same Sex Marriage was going to happen.
 
Posted by T.S.S.DOVER (# 17820) on :
 
Some exhilarating views-but why so complicated?

EVERYONE TO THEIR OWN

simple as that-no further argument required
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Welcome T.S.S. Dover. You're a bit brave making your first post in Hell but it's been done before.

Do have a look at the Ship's Ten Commandments (which aren't those Moses brought down the mountain) and the guidelines which differ from board to board, especially so for the Hell board guidelines.

Happy sailing!

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by T.S.S.DOVER (# 17820) on :
 
Thanks for the welcome Sioni. I was expecting a torrent of profanity. I've already checked out the 10 commandments hence my post.

I was brought up a Catholic (subjected to my mother's conversion from Anglican).At primary school was beaten up by nunns-at Catholic secondary school was taught maths,technical drawing and RE by a liberal-who taught me to be succint and set me free.

My current parish priest(I go now to mass now and again)is a good bloke-he delights in mentioning that christianity is an off-shoot of the Jewish religion.His church is always packed out(but not as busy as Ballinrobe)and he welcomes everyone-gays included-and he would conduct same sex marriage if he could(he'd probably do it on the quiet if he could get away with it).He uses the expression-EACH TO THEIR OWN.So now do I.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Welcome Benjamin. [Biased]

If we were all isolated in our own universes, then your pithy saying would be delightful. But when we all have to play nice together, It falls apart. As this thread displays.

Enjoy the ship.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Sorry, just to clarify the name in my last post.
I have no idea of what the first name of a steam ship really is, but I do love a pathetic dad joke pun.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
...and his bosom companion, Seymour Butts.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by T.S.S.DOVER:
Thanks for the welcome Sioni. I was expecting a torrent of profanity. I've already checked out the 10 commandments hence my post.

I was brought up a Catholic (subjected to my mother's conversion from Anglican).At primary school was beaten up by nunns-at Catholic secondary school was taught maths,technical drawing and RE by a liberal-who taught me to be succint and set me free.

My current parish priest(I go now to mass now and again)is a good bloke-he delights in mentioning that christianity is an off-shoot of the Jewish religion.His church is always packed out(but not as busy as Ballinrobe)and he welcomes everyone-gays included-and he would conduct same sex marriage if he could(he'd probably do it on the quiet if he could get away with it).He uses the expression-EACH TO THEIR OWN.So now do I.

So why would he have to do it on the quiet or wait for the law? Surely he can just say "Each to their own" and marry anyone who wants to get married?

[ 14. September 2013, 06:27: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by T.S.S.DOVER:


My current parish priest(I go now to mass now and again)is a good bloke-he delights in mentioning that christianity is an off-shoot of the Jewish religion.His church is always packed out(but not as busy as Ballinrobe)and he welcomes everyone-gays included-and he would conduct same sex marriage if he could(he'd probably do it on the quiet if he could get away with it).He uses the expression-EACH TO THEIR OWN.So now do I.

So why would he have to do it on the quiet or wait for the law? Surely he can just say "Each to their own" and marry anyone who wants to get married?
I expect he is wary of someone reading the register and seeing the marriage ceremony of "Michael, bachelor of this parish" and "David, bachelor of some other parish" and asking a few simple questions.

Dear oh dear, some of the Hellions do make me wonder ....
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

I expect he is wary of someone reading the register and seeing the marriage ceremony of "Michael, bachelor of this parish" and "David, bachelor of some other parish" and asking a few simple questions.[

Dear oh dear, some of the Hellions do make me wonder ....

Well, then perhaps going around shouting "Each to their own" is not the universal solution TSS Dover thinks it is. It seems to crumple on contact with people who have a different view.


[edited to fix code and fucked up attribution. *sigh* the shit I do for you people.... comet, Hellhost]

[ 14. September 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :
 
Mudfrog wrote
quote:
Er, no they are not. God will not bless or affirm that which he has expressly forbidden.

Where is the Bible is the verse that says SSM is forbidden by God? Clearly? Unequivocally?

No. I thought not. There is NO SUCH BIBLICAL PROHIBITION. You just decided to interpret some stuff to make one.

Don't try and make the Bible say things it doesn't.
 
Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :
 
And another thing Mudfrog:

This distinction between moral and celemonial laws in Leviticus.

Where in the BIBLE does it say, this is a ceremonical law which can be done away with and this is a moral one?

It doesn't. That is a post-Biblical distinction overlaid on the text. Convenient for you. But wholly human and something that we can disregard quite happily. Why not try disregarding your non-Biblical Biblicism.

It would be good for you and for the rest of us.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Where is the Bible is the verse that says SSM is forbidden by God? Clearly? Unequivocally?

Where does it say that it is permissible?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Where is the Bible is the verse that says SSM is forbidden by God? Clearly? Unequivocally?

Where does it say that it is permissible?
Where does it say it is permissable to buy bonds? Have oral sex? Do anything but "rest" on the Sabbath? At my church nobody complains if I clean up dishes after the coffee hour.

[ 16. September 2013, 17:23: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
French kissing? That's not an invite, but another question about Biblical permission.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do anything but "rest" on the Sabbath?

I'm pretty sure that one is covered by "the Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath".
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Ah. True.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Doesn't the exhortation "It is better to marry than to burn, except for Sodomites" apply? [Razz]

[ 16. September 2013, 19:35: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
Where is the Bible is the verse that says SSM is forbidden by God? Clearly? Unequivocally?

Where does it say that it is permissible?
I could probably name 1000 things I do that the Bible doesn't say are permissible. And you and every one of us.

Where in the Bible does it say that anything not specifically allowed is forbidden? Answer that.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I'm fairly sure it was on this very thread that I made the point that the Bible doesn't say anything positive about message boards on the Internet.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
It must have been an oversight.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm fairly sure it was on this very thread that I made the point that the Bible doesn't say anything positive about message boards on the Internet.

It doesn't give much leeway about gossip.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]
Anglo Catholic Relict is willing to excuse homophobic actions by those following the homophobic teachings of her church. This puts her in the first category of concern troll despite her disavowals that she doesn't condone homophobia.

I left for a while because I was unwell. It may happen from time to time. Don't flatter yourselves that anyone here is able to cause it, or indeed prevent it. It happens.

For now I am here. And it would appear that there is a degree of misrepresentation going on in this thread.

First of all, the above slander. Where exactly did I ever condone homophobic actions? You are going to have to find evidence for that one. Good luck with that.

Gay sex is not a sin per se, imho. It may or may not be sinful, the same as any other sexual act. The sin is not inherent in the act, but in the intent, the motive, the attitude towards the other person; it is far more complex than just being about the mechanics. A marriage licence is not a get out of sin free card for all sexual encounters with one's spouse, neither is all gay sex (married or not) necessarily sinful.

The requirements are the same in either case; treating the other person with love, respect, consideration and as they would want to be treated.

Slander is a sin, however. There may be situations where that sin can be mitigated, but I cannot for the moment think of any.

quote:

She also thinks that the only way to deal with the homophobia is to be nice and show pity to people in this church who are struggling with homophobic teachings.

Once again, where did I say that the only way to deal with homophobia is by being nice?

Certainly we ought to pity anyone trying to reconcile love for those around them with the very intransigent teachings of their church. The only people I know who are incapable of pity are sociopaths, and that is not a good way to go. But pity is not at all the same thing as condoning those teachings, let alone being actively or even passively homophobic.

I thank God for gay people; I genuinely owe my life to a gay priest. I don't know what I would do without his love and friendship, without his unfailing generosity throughout the past 20 years.

If anyone still wants to call me names, then go ahead. Those lies will say more about you than they ever will about me.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am confused as well.
I will summarise.
You defend the position of Chesterbelloc (et al).
Chesterbelloc's position is that it is right and just to use law to impose one's religious/moral beliefs on others who do not share said beliefs.
Therefore you share the guilt and remonstrations.
Where am I wrong?

I did not condone using the law to impose any religious beliefs on other people. I have not seen Chesterbelloc say such a thing, so I cannot comment on that, or on his opinions. I think of all forms of government, a theocracy is always the very worst kind. I do not mind Christian values, but I would vote Monster Raving Looney before any Christian political party.

What I said is that Catholics who want to remain faithful to their church are in a very difficult position. They cannot disagree with those teachings and remain in communion. (I can, because I am Anglo Catholic, not Vatican Catholic.) They also cannot agree with the teachings and at the same time treat gay people with the love that is imperative for all of us, towards everyone else.

How can they love a gay person, and at the same time accept that this person is effectively excommunicate, simply for having a partner? The same goes for a lot of other 'sins'; the same will apply in many other aspects of life. The RCC is a very cumbersome animal; it simply cannot change the way people want it to. Even if the Pope wanted to change all these things tomorrow, he would not be able to. He is doing what he can, imo, in terms of refocussing on love and acceptance, and away from intolerance.

A sensible Catholic will decide that love is far more important than anything else, and I think that in everyday life this is what happens; Catholics do NOT go around in general treating gay people with disrespect or with disdain. Far from it. Some might, but I do not think it is true of the majority of people. Certainly not those that I know.

The same clearly cannot be said for the RCC. Its first motivation is far too often nothing to do with love.

But the average Catholic trying to reconcile faithfulness towards his church with love for his neighbour is in an unenviable position. It is this which I would hope to have compassion for.

I would not have any compassion whatever for anyone who engaged in abusive behaviour of any kind, no matter who the target might be.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]The people whose judgment on what hurts matters are the people who are being hurt and not people who are doing the hurtful actions. Gay people by and large think that applying the homophobic teachings of the Church is homophobic.

Of course it is.

But teachings do NOT have to be applied, and particularly not when applying those teachings means breaking the most imperative commandments of all; that of loving God and our neighbour as ourselves.

Christian love comes first. Nothing else can possibly contradict that love.

quote:

You might want to give some examples of how to accept and practice homophobic teaching without being homophobic because they are not apparent from the current actions of the Church and its followers.

Why would I want to do that?

I have not said anywhere that homophobia is acceptable in any context.

quote:
It seems like an impossible escape clause you're trying to find. You are out of luck once you admit that some of the teachings qualify as homophobic.
Some of the teachings are homophobic, yes, they are, in my view.

But that does not make every Catholic on earth a homophobe. That is all that I have tried to say, and I have been called all sorts of vile names as a result.

quote:

The next generation who on the one side see their gay friends and on the other see your theory that Catholics get a free pass to apply homophobic teachings because they are being faithful and sincere.

Nobody gets a free pass to abuse anyone, neither Catholics nor gay people, no matter how sincere.

quote:

...
This comes from a man who is opposing same-sex marriage.

Newsflash: I do not oppose same sex marriage. Never have; never will.

Marriage is a legal construct, and is defined in law. When the law defines marriage as being between same sex couples equally as between opposite sex couples, then that is what marriage is. I have no problem with that.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I'm curious how you find the natural law arguments against homosexuality. I mean the teleological argument that human sex is 'unitive and procreative', if that's the right phrase, and therefore gay sex is 'disordered'.
Well, I am not a Vatican Catholic, so to me that comes under the heading of barking mad back formation argument. Perhaps unlike others here I do not expect too much of Rome. A church predicated upon a celibate clergy and religious orders is hardly going to be a beacon of erudition in relation to human sexuality, is it?

Natural law is not applied to any other aspect of human life, so I see no reason why it ought to apply here. Wearing clothes is against natural law. So is reading and writing. So is agriculture. So is flying a plane, driving a car, standing in a queue at Greggs, using money and indeed using a bathroom.

The RCC has no problem with 'disorder' in these areas. I see no reason to apply natural law to sex, when we have rather moved on from it in pretty well every other aspect of life.

If natural law applies, then it stands to reason we ought to all stop wearing clothes, eat raw turnips and live in caves. I would respect such an argument from St Anthony of Egypt, therefore, but not people who drive cars and eat hot dinners.

quote:

It strikes me that this kind of argument just does not ring any bells with most people today, and so it is a dead duck.

What do you think?

Apart from the rather unfortunate mixed metaphor of ducks ringing bells, I would agree.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]When the Catholic Church in the State of Washington lectured in all its churches before the last state election that Catholics should vote against the state allowing Gays to get married that's NOT belief, that's hurtful behaviour. When Lennon Cihak, a teenager in Minnesota, was denied communion because he had posted a pro-gay marriage page on Facebook, that's behavior by the hierarchy which is a homophobic attempt to prevent secular marriage by Gay people.
I've already mentioned the much older behavior attempt to prevent Gays from being a protected category in the hate crime laws. That's three examples of BEHAVIOR and not just abstract belief in doctrines.

Indeed so.

And all three are abhorrent in the extreme.

Meanwhile, I have done none of these, and condoned none of these, and yet I have been called all sorts of names.

That is behaviour as well.

quote:
You evade that by saying that the actions of the Catholic Church cannot be homophobic by (your) definition. Even when they are homophobic actions that are official policy and clearly damage Gay Catholics and Non Catholics.
I did not say that.

quote:
Bigotry is acceptable to you if it's ordered by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and executed by members of the church.
Where is your evidence for this statement?

quote:
You seem to throw around straw man charges of Nazi's around a lot as a rhetorical device.
I was not the one who brought up Nuremberg.

quote:
Are you condoning the homophobia in the behavior? Are you going to continue to pretend it's a wholesale bigoted condemnation of all Catholics and a charge that you are guilty of Nazism to point out this is homophobic behavior? What do you think of those Catholics who fail in your assigned impossible task of reconciling the doctrine and marching orders of the Vatican and actually do damaging homophobic behavior. Do you just pity them and ignore their victims?

Don't be silly.

On this thread, in this place, I have not seen the word 'some' used often enough. I have seen Catholics condemned; I have seen Chesterbelloc struggling with his conscience, and anathamatised soundly for it.

Perhaps I have missed that word, perhaps it was there, and I just did not notice it. But I certainly have got the impression from this thread in this place that all Catholics bear collective responsibility for doctrines irt gay people, and are vilified accordingly.

Not least because the same has happened to me, and I am not even Roman.

[ 21. September 2013, 00:31: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]The people whose judgment on what hurts matters are the people who are being hurt and not people who are doing the hurtful actions. Gay people by and large think that applying the homophobic teachings of the Church is homophobic.

Of course it is.

But teachings do NOT have to be applied, and particularly not when applying those teachings means breaking the most imperative commandments of all; that of loving God and our neighbour as ourselves.

Christian love comes first. Nothing else can possibly contradict that love.

quote:

You might want to give some examples of how to accept and practice homophobic teaching without being homophobic because they are not apparent from the current actions of the Church and its followers.

Why would I want to do that?

I have not said anywhere that homophobia is acceptable in any context.

quote:
It seems like an impossible escape clause you're trying to find. You are out of luck once you admit that some of the teachings qualify as homophobic.
Some of the teachings are homophobic, yes, they are, in my view.

But that does not make every Catholic on earth a homophobe. That is all that I have tried to say, and I have been called all sorts of vile names as a result.

quote:

The next generation who on the one side see their gay friends and on the other see your theory that Catholics get a free pass to apply homophobic teachings because they are being faithful and sincere.

Nobody gets a free pass to abuse anyone, neither Catholics nor gay people, no matter how sincere.

quote:

...
This comes from a man who is opposing same-sex marriage.

Newsflash: I do not oppose same sex marriage. Never have; never will.

Marriage is a legal construct, and is defined in law. When the law defines marriage as being between same sex couples equally as between opposite sex couples, then that is what marriage is. I have no problem with that.

Nobody here is trying to cure or cause your unwellness. Your health is a topic for a different board.

You've demonstrated several times it's not worth a lot of effort to compile specifics for you because your response will be a flippant "LA LA LA". Still once more...

My previous alleged lies consisted of quotes from your posts. Let's do another.

You say you're not saying being nice is the only way to treat homophobia. You then used the word "certainly" in the next sentence on dealing with homophobic actions.
"Certainly" implies an invariable conclusion that the only way we should deal with those who are enacting actions against gay people because the pope told them to do so is pity. If you thought that this was one of several tactics you would have used a word such as "sometimes".

The reader can determine if I lied in quoting your use of the word "certainly".


In prior posts I enumerated a set of actions against gay people that were instigated by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and implemented by Church members. I prefer to hold these accountable for their vile actions and pity their victims. After they are rendered harmless you can consider pity for those that feel compelled to follow the homophobic actions advocated by the teachers of the teachings of the church. I enumerated several of these actions in detail in earlier posts that you ignored as you sweep forward with your pity for those orchestrating and implementing these actions. If they have a dilemma of choice between harm to others and the teachings and teachers of the church, they should ditch the latter.

Re your newsflash,here's a clue for you; The Catholic Church disagrees with you about Same Sex Marriage and is actively working to prevent secular same sex marriage around the world. You're an example of the cryptic homophobe that this thread is about. "I'm for same sex marriage" but I won't tell members of the Catholic church that they're wrong to follow the churches teachings against it because I have pity for them because they're obliged to follow the teachings of the church, no matter how much harm they cause others.

Aren't you a special one? Isn't your support of same sex marriage ever so useless?
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Nobody here is trying to cure or cause your unwellness. Your health is a topic for a different board.

Thank you for your compassion.

I was just explaining the gap, that is all.

quote:

If they have a dilemma of choice between harm to others and the teachings and teachers of the church, they should ditch the latter.

Who died and made you Pope, exactly?

I am not an expert, but afaiaa The Roman Catholic Church does not have a doctrine of the lesser of two evils. All evils MUST be avoided.

Therefore, a Catholic CANNOT cause harm to anyone else without sin. There is no 'choice'. It cannot be done.

Those who harm others, whoever they are, are sinning.

quote:

Re your newsflash,here's a clue for you; The Catholic Church disagrees with you about Same Sex Marriage and is actively working to prevent secular same sex marriage around the world. You're an example of the cryptic homophobe that this thread is about. "I'm for same sex marriage" but I won't tell members of the Catholic church that they're wrong to follow the churches teachings against it because I have pity for them because they're obliged to follow the teachings of the church, no matter how much harm they cause others.

Liar.

A Catholic cannot be blamed for following Church teaching. That teaching does NOT give them permission to treat anyone with disrespect, or indeed other than as they would treat Christ himself.

quote:

Aren't you a special one? Isn't your support of same sex marriage ever so useless?

No, I am not special. And yes; most of what I do is useless.

Congratulations on finally saying what is true about me; you got there in the end.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

Liar.

A Catholic cannot be blamed for following Church teaching. That teaching does NOT give them permission to treat anyone with disrespect, or indeed other than as they would treat Christ himself.


But they do. The members of the church do treat others with disrespect, following the teachings of the church leadership. I gave you several specific examples of disrespectful homophobic actions toward gays. Historically, the treatment of the Jews in Spain by the church was disrespectful.

Did God whisper in your ear that Catholics can't be blamed for their actions as long as the church told them to do it?
Do you believe this is some universal law of nature? Why shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions no matter what their motivation? And if the actions are vile, and they claim that the actions are the results of following the teachings, then their interpretation is wrong or the teachings are vile.

I don't give Catholics a free pass the way you do for their homophobic actions. I don't have to be Pope to do that. I don't blame them for following their teachings, I just blame them for their actions and not their theological excuses.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QB]When the Catholic Church in the State of Washington lectured in all its churches before the last state election that Catholics should vote against the state allowing Gays to get married that's NOT belief, that's hurtful behaviour. When Lennon Cihak, a teenager in Minnesota, was denied communion because he had posted a pro-gay marriage page on Facebook, that's behavior by the hierarchy which is a homophobic attempt to prevent secular marriage by Gay people.
I've already mentioned the much older behavior attempt to prevent Gays from being a protected category in the hate crime laws. That's three examples of BEHAVIOR and not just abstract belief in doctrines.

Indeed so.

And all three are abhorrent in the extreme.

Meanwhile, I have done none of these, and condoned none of these, and yet I have been called all sorts of names.

That is behaviour as well.

quote:
You evade that by saying that the actions of the Catholic Church cannot be homophobic by (your) definition. Even when they are homophobic actions that are official policy and clearly damage Gay Catholics and Non Catholics.
I did not say that.

quote:
Bigotry is acceptable to you if it's ordered by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and executed by members of the church.
Where is your evidence for this statement?

quote:
You seem to throw around straw man charges of Nazi's around a lot as a rhetorical device.
I was not the one who brought up Nuremberg.

quote:
Are you condoning the homophobia in the behavior? Are you going to continue to pretend it's a wholesale bigoted condemnation of all Catholics and a charge that you are guilty of Nazism to point out this is homophobic behavior? What do you think of those Catholics who fail in your assigned impossible task of reconciling the doctrine and marching orders of the Vatican and actually do damaging homophobic behavior. Do you just pity them and ignore their victims?

Don't be silly.

On this thread, in this place, I have not seen the word 'some' used often enough. I have seen Catholics condemned; I have seen Chesterbelloc struggling with his conscience, and anathamatised soundly for it.

Perhaps I have missed that word, perhaps it was there, and I just did not notice it. But I certainly have got the impression from this thread in this place that all Catholics bear collective responsibility for doctrines irt gay people, and are vilified accordingly.

Not least because the same has happened to me, and I am not even Roman.

1 You say these are abhorrent actions in the extreme.
2. The preaching from the pulpit against same sex marriage was a teaching of the church.
3. You say one can't blame Catholics that follow the teaching of the church.

When you say that Catholics can't be blamed for following teachings, you are condoning those Catholics who engage in the action demanded by the abhorrent teaching and voting against the legalization of same sex secular marriage.


This term Catholic applies to those Catholics who follow the teachings and execute homophobic actions. It does not apply to Catholics who ignore the proclamations on Same Sex Marriage the same way many of them ignore the Church teachings on contraception. So stop claiming this is a blanket condemnation of ALL Catholics.
SOME Catholics engage in abhorrent homophobic actions, including many of the hierarchy of the Church judging by their proclamations.

If you find the use of the word "Some" falls below your minimum requirements, too bad. Your automatic translation to "All" is your problem.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This term Catholic applies to those Catholics who follow the teachings and execute homophobic actions. It does not apply to Catholics who ignore the proclamations on Same Sex Marriage the same way many of them ignore the Church teachings on contraception. So stop claiming this is a blanket condemnation of ALL Catholics.
SOME Catholics engage in abhorrent homophobic actions, including many of the hierarchy of the Church judging by their proclamations.

The term "Catholic" refers to Catholics. Members of the Church of Rome. It doesn't selectively apply based on who you want it to apply to. Words don't work that way.

When you say "Catholics do X" in English that is exactly the same as saying "All Catholics do X" unless there is something in the immediate context to make it clear the term is not being used universally. The default meaning for a collective term used without qualifier is ALL not SOME. That's just how the language works. So sorry. Make you could write your own language? There's a webpage for people like that.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This term Catholic applies to those Catholics who follow the teachings and execute homophobic actions. It does not apply to Catholics who ignore the proclamations on Same Sex Marriage the same way many of them ignore the Church teachings on contraception. So stop claiming this is a blanket condemnation of ALL Catholics.
SOME Catholics engage in abhorrent homophobic actions, including many of the hierarchy of the Church judging by their proclamations.

The term "Catholic" refers to Catholics. Members of the Church of Rome. It doesn't selectively apply based on who you want it to apply to. Words don't work that way.

When you say "Catholics do X" in English that is exactly the same as saying "All Catholics do X" unless there is something in the immediate context to make it clear the term is not being used universally. The default meaning for a collective term used without qualifier is ALL not SOME. That's just how the language works. So sorry. Make you could write your own language? There's a webpage for people like that.

I should have written the above qualifier should as "the term Catholic in the above paragraph"
It was an attempt to make clear the description was not a universal description of all Catholics.

However the question is, is the immediate context the sentence or the thread?

The term Catholic has been qualified in this thread multiple times, to be describing the Catholics who follow homophobic teachings. There are least four places where I or Orfeo have said that explicitly at length.

To quote Orfeo:

quote:
ACR, you really seem to have missed the point that Palimpsest was talking about applying beliefs. Not merely believing them in some sort of abstract, oh yes I know that's the official doctrine of the Catholic church sort of way. Actually applying them.

Because half of what you've said after that is actually in agreement with the people you think you're arguing against.

or mine;
quote:
No, we are describing the responsibility of some Catholics for some homophobia. Unfortunately that group of some Catholics includes the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. You're trying evade descriptions of specific homophobic behavior by the church by making a straw man claiming the charge is all Catholics are homophobic. News flash, not all Catholics follow all teachings of the Church. e.g. Contraception.


 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

The term Catholic has been qualified in this thread multiple times, to be describing the Catholics who follow homophobic teachings. There are least four places where I or Orfeo have said that explicitly at length.

That is an attempted rationalisation of bigoted language. No matter how many times you have said this 'at length', it is not true. Not now, not ever.

'Catholic' does NOT mean 'Catholic who follows homophobic teachings.' That is a distortion of language, and it is evidence of distorted thinking, imo.

By twisting language this way, you express a very nasty anti-Catholic attitude. It is simply not possible to do away with the modifiers, to condemn everyone equally, and then say, we only meant the bad ones.

The way I have been described shows clearly enough that you do not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. Everyone is condemned equally, everyone is guilty.

Shame on you.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This term Catholic applies to those Catholics who follow the teachings and execute homophobic actions. It does not apply to Catholics who ignore the proclamations on Same Sex Marriage the same way many of them ignore the Church teachings on contraception. So stop claiming this is a blanket condemnation of ALL Catholics.
SOME Catholics engage in abhorrent homophobic actions, including many of the hierarchy of the Church judging by their proclamations.

The term "Catholic" refers to Catholics. Members of the Church of Rome. It doesn't selectively apply based on who you want it to apply to. Words don't work that way.

When you say "Catholics do X" in English that is exactly the same as saying "All Catholics do X" unless there is something in the immediate context to make it clear the term is not being used universally. The default meaning for a collective term used without qualifier is ALL not SOME. That's just how the language works. So sorry. Make you could write your own language? There's a webpage for people like that.

At last, a voice of sanity.

Thank you, Mousethief.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Did God whisper in your ear that Catholics can't be blamed for their actions as long as the church told them to do it?
Do you believe this is some universal law of nature? Why shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions no matter what their motivation? And if the actions are vile, and they claim that the actions are the results of following the teachings, then their interpretation is wrong or the teachings are vile.

I don't give Catholics a free pass the way you do for their homophobic actions. I don't have to be Pope to do that. I don't blame them for following their teachings, I just blame them for their actions and not their theological excuses.

To put it another way: if you hold a bigoted view because your religion tells you to, you either agree with that view or you're content to go along with it even though you think it's wrong. But religion is no excuse for bigotry.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
To put it another way: if you hold a bigoted view because your religion tells you to, you either agree with that view or you're content to go along with it even though you think it's wrong. But religion is no excuse for bigotry.

Indeed not.

Neither is being gay.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
To put it another way: if you hold a bigoted view because your religion tells you to, you either agree with that view or you're content to go along with it even though you think it's wrong. But religion is no excuse for bigotry.

Indeed not.

Neither is being gay.

When has anyone used being gay as an excuse for bigotry?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
ACR,
Perhaps not, but it is certainly understandable.
-----------
Group X officially states position a. Some members believe this, some do not, some do not think about it.
This is true for most values of X and a. The larger the group, the nearer this statement moves to all values.
So, the statement X believes a, is not wrong, but it is sloppy.
The Catholic Church teaches homosexuality is a sin. It actively campaigns to repress homosexual rights. A significant percentage of membership accept this or say nothing against it.
It is more than acceptable to say Catholics are anti-gay without this being a bigoted statement. If the qualifier all is added, then it becomes inaccurate and bigoted.

[ 24. September 2013, 09:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The definition of bigotry is NOT 'disliking someone for a reason'.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
religion is no excuse for bigotry.

Indeed not.

Neither is being gay.

When has anyone used being gay as an excuse for bigotry?
To be fair, gay people have used the way that they were treated by certain non-gay people as an excuse for not liking those non-gay people. If "excuse" is the right word. Perhaps "impetus" or "reason" works better. And if their dislike spills over onto others who say nasty things about them, I for one am not going to blame them.

To borrow an idea from another field, everyone who spews venomous words about gays is, to a gay person, Schrödinger's Gay-basher. Will they attack me? Will they not? I can't know until they do.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
To put it another way: if you hold a bigoted view because your religion tells you to, you either agree with that view or you're content to go along with it even though you think it's wrong. But religion is no excuse for bigotry.

Indeed not.

Neither is being gay.

On this thread.

I have never encountered anything like this irl. I do hope it is only hell bringing out the worst in people.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
To a degree, yes, that's Hell for you. But don't underestimate the raw nerves hit here by this particular topic.
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To a degree, yes, that's Hell for you. But don't underestimate the raw nerves hit here by this particular topic.

I don't. That is why I have stayed polite in the face of some appalling treatment. Being oppressed gives nobody the right to oppress anyone else. That is not how it works.

The vast majority of ordinary, everyday Catholics are NOT homophobic in any way whatever, and do nothing to promote hostility towards gay people, or to support their oppression.

They do not deserve to be vilified, simply because they are Catholic, any more than any gay person deserves to be vilified for being gay.

It is not sufficient to say, we have been hurt by some Catholics, therefore we are entitled to say anything we want to about all Catholics, and then if anyone gets offended they are homophobic as well. Feelings may well run high, but that does not justify such language.

Catholics are taught that their church has the fullness of truth. They are also taught some very outdated and frankly untrue things about gay people. Most Catholics are sensible enough to make up their own minds about this, just as they do about contraception and other issues.

I have no doubt that if they could effect change, they would, and many do try. But the RCC is very cumbersome and incredibly difficult to change. This is not the only issue which presents problems to Catholics.

As I said above, ordinary everyday Catholics do not have the choise of the lesser of two evils; they cannot hurt anyone without committing sin. And homophobia is a sin.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
For crying out loud, ACR, if you're truly as hurt and sad as you keep telling us you are, do yourself a favor stay out of Hell.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To a degree, yes, that's Hell for you. But don't underestimate the raw nerves hit here by this particular topic.

I don't. That is why I have stayed polite in the face of some appalling treatment. Being oppressed gives nobody the right to oppress anyone else. That is not how it works.


ACR, if you don't want to be hurt, Hell isn't the place to be. Quite a lot of people have thrashed this issue out on this thread and moved on. It's time you did the same for your own good.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

It is not sufficient to say, we have been hurt by some Catholics, therefore we are entitled to say anything we want to about all Catholics, and then if anyone gets offended they are homophobic as well. Feelings may well run high, but that does not justify such language.

Strong language is not bigotry, it is not persecution - it's simply strong language.

Best to look past the means of expression to the ideas and thoughts behind it imo.

[ 24. September 2013, 18:25: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
ACR - I'm delighted to see you back on the Ship but please GET OUT OF HELL! It isn't the right place for anyone who is bruised by life.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Anglo Catholic Relict:

A Catholic last November in Seattle goes to a Catholic church where he or she hears a sermon directing them to vote against the amendment permitting gay marriage. They apply this teaching vote accordingly.

A. Should this Catholic be despised and vilified as a homophobe for applying a homophobic teaching?

B. Should this Catholics homophobic actions be condoned because they're struggling against the appalling teachings of their church?


In this thread I've heard you make statements that could support both positions.


In response to "Religion is no excuse for bigotry " You said "Indeed Not."

Earlier you wrote

"I do not think that faithfulness to Roman Catholic teaching constitutes being homophobic.

Some of the teachings themselves may well qualify, but a devout Catholic trying to find a way to accept those teachings (as he or she must) without hurting anyone around them (as they also must) is to be pitied, not vilified, imo."

Again in this case and the others I cited, they did actions which hurt people. Specifically Gay people who wanted to get married.

Note A is a specific condemnation of specific Catholics who have tried to prevent gay people from getting married. So the fact you don't want to impose a moral standard does not mean they aren't trying to do so.

So which is it ACR? A or B? Every time I bring focus to this point up you do a chewbacca defense and ignore the question.

So, A or B?

[ 24. September 2013, 23:29: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

The vast majority of ordinary, everyday Catholics are NOT homophobic in any way whatever, and do nothing to promote hostility towards gay people, or to support their oppression.

I know it's different where you are, ACR, but the above statement is not true in the States. A bum-in-pew American Catholic may be as kind as anything to individual gays, but if they pledge money to the Catholic Church, they're financially supporting a powerful political lobby which affects all Americans. It's not worth much to be polite to your gay neighbors when your money is being used to stop them marrying each other.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
We're doing our damnedest to persuade ACR against reading anything in Hell, let alone responding to anything in Hell, for his/her own good and what happens?

Thanks Pal.
 
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:

The vast majority of ordinary, everyday Catholics are NOT homophobic in any way whatever, and do nothing to promote hostility towards gay people, or to support their oppression.

I know it's different where you are, ACR, but the above statement is not true in the States. A bum-in-pew American Catholic may be as kind as anything to individual gays, but if they pledge money to the Catholic Church, they're financially supporting a powerful political lobby which affects all Americans. It's not worth much to be polite to your gay neighbors when your money is being used to stop them marrying each other.
On the contrary, it is the most worthwhile thing to be loving toward those who have sexual attractions toward their own sex. How is loving one's neighbour ever "not worth much"?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
On the contrary, it is the most worthwhile thing to be loving toward those who have sexual attractions toward their own sex. How is loving one's neighbour ever "not worth much"?

I think the point is that there is very little that is "loving" about being nice to someone's face then using your money to support their persecution. Though judging from your phrasing I suspect you choose to pretend that gay people don't really exist...
 
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :
 
Dear Arethosemyfeet,

I agree with your opinion, though not with the tactless way in which you put it.

Since I was 11 or 12, I've had homosexual urges. I attribute it to childhood trauma, abuse, and neglect, not to anything genetic. Since I converted to Christianity over a period of time from 2009-2011, I've been desperately trying to combat the urges and desires. It's an uphill battle, and I don't appreciate a bunch of silly straight liberals trying to be compassionate about something they do not understand. Equally, I do not appreciate a bunch of emasculated men claiming that what they celebrate is natural or good. We do not have any reason to recognize homosexuality in the legal system. It's absolutely disgusting.

People who meet me are convinced that I'm a homophobe after listening to a few of my jokes. It's very funny to see their reaction if I decide to make my problems known. "But... how can you be conservative?" "But... how can you be a Christian?" It's amusing how many wet blankets there really are out there.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
You've shown yourself to be a vile person in just 8 posts, VDMA.
 
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You've shown yourself to be a vile person in just 8 posts, VDMA.

Why is that, Zach?

Is it because I am gay but not a "nice", touchy-feely sort? Is it because I dislike liberals pretending to be Christians?

You don't have to hunt down all my posts just to insult me.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
It doesn't generally win you a lot of friends to work out your hatred of yourself on complete strangers.

You might want to review the 10 Commandments of the Ship before posting further.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
We do not have any reason to recognize homosexuality in the legal system. It's absolutely disgusting.

What do you mean by 'recognise'? Would you accept that homosexual acts between consenting adults ought to be decriminalised?
 
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :
 
Zach,

You're actually right. I am a vile person. Only by recognizing this am I able to receive the grace of Christ who died for all sinners like me. It doesn't mean I will be any less serious. This is who I am. Expressing your personality is not a violation of the rules, especially when you don't actually call people "jerk" or "vile".

Maybe I need to review the rules again, but "self-hating homophobe" isn't a hateful "-ism" as far as I can tell.

Do you belong to one of the Mainlines? It seems to make sense, because you assume that a gay person who is critical of the homosexual-identity is self-hating. Mainline cultures seem to like this kind of condescension - or 'crypto-homophobia', as the O.P. calls it.

If you're not Mainline, I apologize for assuming it. Peace to your heart.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
We do not have any reason to recognize homosexuality in the legal system. It's absolutely disgusting.

What do you mean by 'recognise'? Would you accept that homosexual acts between consenting adults ought to be decriminalised?
Anglican't,

By 'recognise', I mean giving tax incentives for gay marriage, allowing non-celibate gays to adopt from state-run/sponsored orphanages, etc.

Just as a sort of warning: I think it is wrong for governments to give any kind of incentive for people to do anything in spheres like this (except to Not Murder, Not Steal, etc.)! Marriage, 'sexual rights', etc., should be totally private. Each soul is saved or damned based on individual choice, and the state shouldn't have a thing to do with it. To make it into a public issue merely puts the immorality of many into the limelight.

[ 28. September 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: VDMA ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
VDMA: I mean giving tax incentives for gay marriage
I can just imagine someone thinking: "I'm strait but hey, we're talking about a couple of grand here..."
 
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[Roll Eyes]

Well, okay then.

Anyway, on topic:

Gays are people - just broken ones, like all people. It's a specific disorder that we deal with, like someone else deals with drug addiction, alcoholism, masturbation, temper, or an urge to thieve.

This sub-forum certainly lives up to its name!

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
VDMA: I mean giving tax incentives for gay marriage
I can just imagine someone thinking: "I'm strait but hey, we're talking about a couple of grand here..."
[Razz] Just for clarity's sake: tax incentives for anything are generally wrong. You're literally stealing from Party A to compel Party B to do something that Party A probably hates. It's not even an essential thing, either, such as protection of innocent lives. Homosexual disorder is a very sad state to be in, even for those who don't realize it. I am sad that it was taken off the DSM IV.

[ 28. September 2013, 21:10: Message edited by: VDMA ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
So, to clarify, you don't think there should be any state involvement when a man marries a woman?

___


I hadn't thought that taking meth and having a wank were comparable, but there you go.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Has somebody set up a Troll Placement Bureau on t'interweb?

Do you think they check us out first, like when they're re-homing kitties? Are there plenty of places for it to play? Will we look after it and feed it regularly?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Has somebody set up a Troll Placement Bureau on t'interweb?

Do you think they check us out first, like when they're re-homing kitties? Are there plenty of places for it to play? Will we look after it and feed it regularly?

Assuming he doesn't burn off his snitty bullshit soon, he won't be around long. Then some other board will get him.
 
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :
 
quote:
So, to clarify, you don't think there should be any state involvement when a man marries a woman?
Inspired by the Book of Common Prayer, I answer this way:

"DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church"

Whenever the Church tries to ingratiate itself with the state, or the state attempts to subsume the Church in itself, the Gospel is perverted or destroyed. State-church separation is absolutely essential. Since marriage is a sacrament instituted by God for the union of one man and one woman, there's really no point in the state recognizing it - except to control the population better.

Think about it: what, in matrimony, particularly needs the government? It's spiritual and private. If two men or two women want to pretend they're married, let them do it in their own church. If a man and a woman want to get married, let them do it in their own church. It's deplorable that the secular sphere has taken Christian marriage and made it into a debate issue.

quote:
I hadn't thought that taking meth and having a wank were comparable, but there you go.
Not sure what you mean by that. [Frown]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Aside from the touchy-feeling aspects we a wont to apply, marriage is almost purely a socio-legal contract. That is why a state-sanctioned marriage license is required for the full benefits of marriage, and a voodoo/church/coven/crypt ceremony is not.
 
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Aside from the touchy-feeling aspects we a wont to apply, marriage is almost purely a socio-legal contract. That is why a state-sanctioned marriage license is required for the full benefits of marriage, and a voodoo/church/coven/crypt ceremony is not.

On the contrary: marriage is a spiritual, private, personal contract between two people.

It seems like we're at an impasse: either you choose the World's view of marriage, or God's definition.

What is it: sacrament, or socio-legal contractual obligation?

The state exists to keep order, not to enforce tired 1960's marxist-feminist philosophy.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Has somebody set up a Troll Placement Bureau on t'interweb?

Do you think they check us out first, like when they're re-homing kitties? Are there plenty of places for it to play? Will we look after it and feed it regularly?

Not certain if it is a bored, 15 year old troll or a sad, to be pitied, but earnest person.
But let's play with it 'til it breaks!

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
State-church separation is absolutely essential.

Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:

Since marriage is a sacrament instituted by God for the union of one man and one woman,

Hmmm, then why did it take the early Christian church a few hundred years to seriously get into the act?
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:

Think about it: what, in matrimony, particularly needs the government? It's spiritual and private.

Spiritual? So atheists cannot marry? What of agnostics, perhaps they must remain only engaged until they make up their spiritual minds?
Some Buddhist traditions are considered spiritual, so they get the nod? Though Buddhism oft considers marriage to be a civil thing. Obviously spiritual are Hindu, Muslim, Bahá'í, oh wait. They are all going to Hell regardless, so it does not matter.

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:

If two men or two women want to pretend they're married, let them do it in their own church.

Oh goody! We can set up pretend churches and have pretend flowers and pretend cake and just pretend this is not complete rubbish.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:

It seems like we're at an impasse: either you choose the World's view of marriage, or God's definition.

Oh, I choose God's definition, definitely.

I just don't think you speak for God.

Sorry, pumpkin. I know you're absolutely crushed a stranger on the Internet doesn't recognize your divinity, but I'm sure one day you will get over it.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
marriage is a spiritual, private, personal contract between two people.

Or, in some traditions with arranged marriages, a contract between their parents.

Your devotion to one very narrow definition of marriage popularized in Victorian era romantic novels is amusing. Even the bible is pretty blasé about it, with many un-critical mentions of polygamy and harems.

The only impasse is between people who blithely cling to opinions they were told to have, and those who actually think about what things really mean and how to make the world better.
 
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :
 
Spiffy,

quote:
Oh, I choose God's definition, definitely.

I just don't think you speak for God.

I do not claim to speak for God; God forbid! That's why I quoted the BCP, and might've quoted the Bible... or any marriage formula written by a Christian denomination for about 1 900 years. I tried to speak from the consensus of our ancestors in faith, not from my own authority.

quote:
Sorry, pumpkin. I know you're absolutely crushed a stranger on the Internet doesn't recognize your divinity, but I'm sure one day you will get over it.
Don't worry; it takes a lot more than condescendingly calling someone "pumpkin" to crush a human spirit.

What a horrible, patronizing attitude. Even if yo think someone is wrong or even a troll, that's no reason to treat them like a puppy. Deplorable and pitiful.

lilBuddha,

quote:
Not certain if it is a bored, 15 year old troll or a sad, to be pitied, but earnest person.
But let's play with it 'til it breaks!

"It"? Is a human being just a kitty? Troll or not, I'm still a Person with an immortal soul. To speak of anyone like that is disgusting. Sorry that I disagree with your spirituality, but I'm not an animal.

It's funny that people hate "trolls" so much they feel free to troll in return.

quote:
Hmmm, then why did it take the early Christian church a few hundred years to seriously get into the act?
Do you think the earliest Fathers never presided over a Christian marriage?

quote:
Spiritual? So atheists cannot marry? What of agnostics, perhaps they must remain only engaged until they make up their spiritual minds?
Some Buddhist traditions are considered spiritual, so they get the nod? Though Buddhism oft considers marriage to be a civil thing. Obviously spiritual are Hindu, Muslim, Bahá'í, oh wait. They are all going to Hell regardless, so it does not matter.

1. Yes, spiritual.
2. Atheists, agnostics, etc., may perform a sort of imitation of divine matrimony, but it's just a ritual, not a thing of power.
3. I never said any of those people are automatically going to Hell.

It's interesting that you assume I'm a sort of fundamentalist wacko who condemns everyone that isn't white, straight, and whatever else. You don't know anything about me. You're judging as quickly as the Pharisees that you seek to condemn - hating with as much hatred as those who appear to hate.

quote:
Oh goody! We can set up pretend churches and have pretend flowers and pretend cake and just pretend this is not complete rubbish.
Sarcasm? I didn't really expect this.

By "their own church", I meant "let them convince their denomination to do it". Facts are facts; we live in the times in which we live.

RooK:

quote:
Or, in some traditions with arranged marriages, a contract between their parents.

Your devotion to one very narrow definition of marriage popularized in Victorian era romantic novels is amusing. Even the bible is pretty blasé about it, with many un-critical mentions of polygamy and harems.

I'm not a Victorian. That stodgy, horrible era was an utter moral vacuum.

The Old Testament does not say "go on, have lots of wives" - it reports facts about pretty immoral kings which God used to forward the foundation of salvation. The New Testament is quite adamant in its marriage-covenant theology.

quote:
The only impasse is between people who blithely cling to opinions they were told to have, and those who actually think about what things really mean and how to make the world better.
I don't mean to boast, I guess, but you are completely wrong if that second paragraph is directed at me. I was raised by the most liberal, radical atheists anyone can meet. Absolutely no sense or idea of religion at all for 20+ years. I have not been told to have any of these opinions. It takes people like us many long years of serious discernment and hard mental fighting to get to this stage, and we often remain unsure of many things.

The fact that I'm even posting in this Hellish forum is because I like to have my ideas challenged so they can be perfected by the grace of God. We are all gifts to one another in that sense.

To Everyone: try not to troll the supposed troll. It's terribly hypocritical.

[ 28. September 2013, 22:19: Message edited by: VDMA ]
 
Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :
 
You know what? I have decided that I have been too proud and arrogant in posting here. It is my fault for being too stubborn and angry against those who disagree with me. I will stop posting in Hell until I have dealt with my own anxiety problems, and am able to speak from a state of peace in the heart.

Please forgive me.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
(x-post note) Hmmh, if you are serious, VDMA, post in Dead Horses. There, ideas are debated but people are not allowed to be attacked.

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:

The fact that I'm even posting in this Hellish forum is because I like to have my ideas challenged so they can be perfected by the grace of God. We are all gifts to one another in that sense.

To Everyone: try not to troll the supposed troll. It's terribly hypocritical.

Its on the lintel. We do not need to play nice here. Funny, you will find many of the discussions lean Purgatorial, but this is not necessary. This is not Purgatory with swearing. You come to this board when Dead Horses has plenty of stables set aside for reasonable discussion of this very topic. You post as if you have not read, or have disregarded, not only the text on the main page of Hell, but the name of this very thread and you expect courtesy?
You post that which is hateful, regardless intent, and expect respect?
Laughable.

Back to your arguments. Your recite the Book of Common prayer. A book written in the infancy of a religion started by a man who treated marriage in a predatory manner, hardly consistent with the supposed Christian Ideal.
As for the early Christians "fathers"; Paul, one of the very earliest, thought marriage only for those who had not the self-control to keep it in their tunics. Hardy a divine sacrament.
There are many examples of polygamous heroes in the bible, and whilst some were taken to task for bad behaving badly, multiple wives was not one of those deeds.

[ 28. September 2013, 23:11: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
This sub-forum certainly lives up to its name!

Yep.

As the presiding gay of this sub-forum, who suffered no abuse or trauma in his childhood and grew up in a very nice home, thank you, (and who spent years trying to be 'cured' before realising the idea of a cure was totally fucked up) I'd like to welcome you.

As has been said, if you want serious debate about homosexuality, Dead Horses is the place to go.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
You know what? I have decided that I have been too proud and arrogant in posting here. It is my fault for being too stubborn and angry against those who disagree with me. I will stop posting in Hell until I have dealt with my own anxiety problems, and am able to speak from a state of peace in the heart.

Please forgive me.

smartest decision you've made all day.

never ever ever bring your "issues" to Hell.

unless, of course, your "issue" is a need to verbally mince the liver of anyone you disagree with* and you relish their attempts to eviscerate in return. Then you're cool. Hey, it's been working for me for years.

* or, you know, understanding friends who occasionally bait you 'cause they know you just need to lance the wound. I loves youse guys.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
He'll be back. We all know it. We should take this time to think about what his hell call will be titled. I propose "VDMA: Let's poke this pimple til he pops."
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
Or "what does VDMA stand for?" (My vote is for Venereal Disease Marketing Association...)
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
VerkehrsmittelsDeutschlands, MAinz?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
He's new. He bowed out semi-gracefully after realizing this wasn't the place for him. Delusional or not, he's still an apprentice, so I think it's a sign of being a little useless shit to jeer him as he walks off the field.

Not that you guys aren't already well established as petty little shits; just making an observation.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You've shown yourself to be a vile person in just 8 posts, VDMA.

Why is that, Zach?

Is it because I am gay but not a "nice", touchy-feely sort? Is it because I dislike liberals pretending to be Christians?

You don't have to hunt down all my posts just to insult me.

I am gay myself and I have celibate gay friends who would never say that because they are celibate, that no protections in law should be given to gay people or that it's "disgusting"
Indeed, I have found much intolerance in the secular gay world and that is deplorable but you are really not making a good case for gay celibate Christians by your aggressive "attack dog " stance either
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Puhleeze. He flounced off because, after calling homosexuals "disgusting," he feels we are calling him mean names. He hasn't actually apologized for shit, indeed he's only argued about how polite and upright he's been this whole time.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Puhleeze. He flounced off because, after calling homosexuals "disgusting," he feels we are calling him mean names. He hasn't actually apologized for shit, indeed he's only argued about how polite and upright he's been this whole time.

Well, to his credit , it wasn't an angry "flounce " He took responsibility for his actions and good for that
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Zach, for someone who sometimes expresses a disdain for the mechanics of Hell, you're doing a damn fine job of wallowing in its excesses.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I should think it would delight you, orfeo, that I've seen the light.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well, you would think wrong in this particular context.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Orfeo, you go our of your way to point out my hypocrisy every time I post in hell, and seem to be nursing a grudge about an argument we had like a year ago, and you are criticizing me for a mere afternoon of indignation for a guy that says things like

quote:
originally posted by VDMA:
"When whole denominations ordain women, tolerate & celebrate gay marriage, practice biblical higher criticism, and generally play around with the faith, they do not deserve the respect of others being "nice" to them."

Gimme a break.

[ 29. September 2013, 04:15: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Zach, he gave a fairly decent apology and withdrew himself from the conversation. I think we should take him at his word until we have reason not to. Yes, I disagree with his beliefs about homosexuality and think they are harmful and offensive. But I think we should cut him some slack based on his apparent self reflection and we-have-no-reason-to-think-it-isn't-sincere apology.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Zach, he gave a fairly decent apology and withdrew himself from the conversation. I think we should take him at his word until we have reason not to. Yes, I disagree with his beliefs about homosexuality and think they are harmful and offensive. But I think we should cut him some slack based on his apparent self reflection and we-have-no-reason-to-think-it-isn't-sincere apology.

I suppose you are right.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, you go our of your way to point out my hypocrisy every time I post in hell, and seem to be nursing a grudge about an argument we had like a year ago, and you are criticizing me for a mere afternoon of indignation for a guy that says things like

quote:
originally posted by VDMA:
"When whole denominations ordain women, tolerate & celebrate gay marriage, practice biblical higher criticism, and generally play around with the faith, they do not deserve the respect of others being "nice" to them."

Gimme a break.
...That's me taken care of. What about the other 4 people who have said much the same thing to you?

The only reason it was about you was because you're the one who wouldn't let go of the bone even after multiple hints that now might be a good time to let go.

It's very nice of you to pay attention when Mousethief points it out to you.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
He's just relocated to Dead Horses where he's in a thread about LGBT people being denied communion.
He's interesting as a hybrid; he seems to identify as GBLT but thinks it's a sin. Usually the "I'm a sinner" sorts don't think of themselves as gay; hence the term "ex-gay:.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He's just relocated to Dead Horses where he's in a thread about LGBT people being denied communion.
He's interesting as a hybrid; he seems to identify as GBLT but thinks it's a sin. Usually the "I'm a sinner" sorts don't think of themselves as gay; hence the term "ex-gay:.

Isn't this what orfeo has said his life was like for many years? Hey orfeo, am I remembering right what you have said?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Yes, pretty much.

The thoughts aren't unusual. Perhaps openly expressing them on a message board rather than keeping them to oneself is a bit unusual.

You get more 'ex-gays' in public because they're the ones who claim to have won.

[ 29. September 2013, 05:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He's just relocated to Dead Horses where he's in a thread about LGBT people being denied communion.
He's interesting as a hybrid; he seems to identify as GBLT but thinks it's a sin. Usually the "I'm a sinner" sorts don't think of themselves as gay; hence the term "ex-gay:.

I had a very brief period like that myself in my youth. According to the kid's profile, the kid's a, well, kid. Poor dear. Needs prayers.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
When I was wandering through the closet, gay had a positive political connotation. Homosexual (or possibly sodomite) could have a more negative context.
It's interesting that gay has subsumed much of the territory of the other labels even for the "homosexuality is bad" group.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I've been thinking. I know that I should leave that to Admins/Hosts, but this is not meant as junior hosting. There was a strange Canadian about 18 months or 2 years ago, who flashed past like a meteorite. Perhaps he (I think it was he) was i fact a comet with a relatively short period, or a person with very Buddhist powers of reincarnation, quite at odds with the professed con-ego beliefs.

And the Shipname. As someone has pointed out in one of the threads, VDMA refers to a German engineering federation. Reverse the letters and AMDV can refer to some computer activity I can't follow. It could be an acronym for Ad Majoram Dei Victoriam - to the greater victory of God.

If this is junior hosting, I apologise.

[ 29. September 2013, 09:59: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
Well, whatever Venereal's credentials are, his view that Anglicans and Lutherans worldwide should get together on the basis that both are a bunch of non-Christian fag hags deserves a hearty "fuck you".
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...That's me taken care of. What about the other 4 people who have said much the same thing to you?

The only reason it was about you was because you're the one who wouldn't let go of the bone even after multiple hints that now might be a good time to let go.

It's very nice of you to pay attention when Mousethief points it out to you.

If you really look at this apology, he's only technically regretted posting in hell. Which is not really the issue here, not in the least because I was harping on what he said in purgatory and in a pm he sent me.

So yeah, I doubted his sincerity a little. I guess we're going to find out.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
he's only technically regretted posting in hell.

Which is quite a clever little game, if you think about it: piss everyone off in virtually every other active thread, then run away from the one in which we can tell him how much of a prat we think he is.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
If he's pissing people off sufficiently in other threads, he will get a Hell call.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He's just relocated to Dead Horses where he's in a thread about LGBT people being denied communion.
He's interesting as a hybrid; he seems to identify as GBLT but thinks it's a sin. Usually the "I'm a sinner" sorts don't think of themselves as gay; hence the term "ex-gay:.

No. You will often hear them using "struggling with Same -sex attraction"
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So yeah, I doubted his sincerity a little. I guess we're going to find out.

Which was all I asked. I think we're definitely finding out all about the depth of his revulsion of gays. I mean, I've heard the term "self-loathing" before, but never really seen it laid out so plainly and neatly. Someone writing an introduction to the concept would be well paid to gather some quotes from VD's threads.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I mean, I've heard the term "self-loathing" before, but never really seen it laid out so plainly and neatly.

That's one of the items that raises my suspicions. I deal with variations of self-loathing in my work (labeled/marginalized people, like my clients, struggle with self-hate a fair amount) and doubt I've ever seen it work quite this way. Generally, self-hate works out in practice as unconscious self-sabotage. It doesn't usually announce itself, and then turn full-glare on others of its alleged "type."

To me, this looks like the ham-actor version of the role in a badly-written Grade B or C movie. But who knows?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Assuming the poor chap is genuine, he makes plain one of the reasons I despise conservative attitudes to homosexuality - they damage people. They take people who are vulnerable and fuck them up. The damage done takes years to put right.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The guy bowed out two days ago, he's an apprentice, and you folks are still taking him apart? Good God, get a life.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I mean, I've heard the term "self-loathing" before, but never really seen it laid out so plainly and neatly.

That's one of the items that raises my suspicions. I deal with variations of self-loathing in my work (labeled/marginalized people, like my clients, struggle with self-hate a fair amount) and doubt I've ever seen it work quite this way. Generally, self-hate works out in practice as unconscious self-sabotage. It doesn't usually announce itself, and then turn full-glare on others of its alleged "type."

To me, this looks like the ham-actor version of the role in a badly-written Grade B or C movie. But who knows?

Yes, it does seem like a very well worked-out persona of some kind, which doesn't mean that it's fake. Your point about unconscious self-sabotage being the norm is on the button, so this is a fascinating sub-species of histrionic self-sabotage - pour encourager les autres, as well. Exotic!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The guy bowed out two days ago, he's an apprentice, and you folks are still taking him apart? Good God, get a life.

I think it's more his attitude/problem they are taking apart.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Which would make sense if the guy were around to benefit from any of these remarks, But he's not here!

Kind of an exercise in colon-scrumpung if you asked me. The effort is not worth the payoff.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Look! Look! I've walked as far as the park in the next suburb and found an exotic new species of butterfly! Let's pull its wings off!
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
He did announce his ambition to return to Hell once he had improved himself sufficiently.

I'm fascinated that a self loathing homosexual labels himself a GBLT. Talk about the triumph of a paradigm by the sorts who previously rejected it out right. I suppose given the use of "gay" as an insult in schoolyards and hip-hop it's now suitable for the self loathing to use for self description But the politically correct appendage of BLT seems odd, especially when he says women are icky.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He did announce his ambition to return to Hell once he had improved himself sufficiently.

I'm fascinated that a self loathing homosexual labels himself a GBLT. Talk about the triumph of a paradigm by the sorts who previously rejected it out right. I suppose given the use of "gay" as an insult in schoolyards and hip-hop it's now suitable for the self loathing to use for self description But the politically correct appendage of BLT seems odd, especially when he says women are icky.

Well, I was at school long before 'gay' was used as an insult in the fashion that it is now, and I was a self loathing homosexual, and I thought that 'gay' was the correct term for me. In c.1996 when I first revealed my sexuality to someone, I said (tearfully) "I think I'm gay".

So I'm afraid I don't find our new poster anywhere near as exotic as many of you seem to, hence my quip about walking to the park in the next suburb.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Which would make sense if the guy were around to benefit from any of these remarks, But he's not here!

He'll be reading, for sure.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Wow, Boogie can accurately predict what other people are doing without knowing them in any way? But rather than make money out of it, she prefers to hang round here shooting fish in a barrel.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Wow, Boogie can accurately predict what other people are doing without knowing them in any way?

It's a talent I exploit to the full. [Angel]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I was at school long before 'gay' was used as an insult in the fashion that it is now, and I was a self loathing homosexual, and I thought that 'gay' was the correct term for me. In c.1996 when I first revealed my sexuality to someone, I said (tearfully) "I think I'm gay".

So I'm afraid I don't find our new poster anywhere near as exotic as many of you seem to, hence my quip about walking to the park in the next suburb.

Yeah, maybe it helps that I live ten minutes away from Gayville, North Gaytonia, but I thought wrestling with institutionalized self- contempt was part of a lot of gay people's story.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
But the politically correct appendage of BLT seems odd, especially when he says women are icky.

And I thought it was a sandwich.

(Actually, get us on men/childbirth/Things I've Had To Clean Up, we can out-ick anybody).
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
But the politically correct appendage of BLT seems odd, especially when he says women are icky.

And I thought it was a sandwich.

Well that would tie in with Porridge's theory about ham acting. [Smile]

[ 02. October 2013, 07:38: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Which would make sense if the guy were around to benefit from any of these remarks, But he's not here!

Yeah, because what Hell is all about is benefitting people. If you can't really help someone, talking about them in Hell is pointless.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
[Big Grin] are you implying I don't know how Hell works?

I am not talking about the purpose of Hell. I am talking about how people are behaving on a Hell thread. Which is anybody's right.

Sark nailed it-- shooting fish in a barrel.
 
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
On the contrary, it is the most worthwhile thing to be loving toward those who have sexual attractions toward their own sex. How is loving one's neighbour ever "not worth much"?

I think the point is that there is very little that is "loving" about being nice to someone's face then using your money to support their persecution. Though judging from your phrasing I suspect you choose to pretend that gay people don't really exist...
Go to any country outside of the liberal west and then cry me a river about the "persecution" of homosexuals by the Church.
[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
On the contrary, it is the most worthwhile thing to be loving toward those who have sexual attractions toward their own sex. How is loving one's neighbour ever "not worth much"?

I think the point is that there is very little that is "loving" about being nice to someone's face then using your money to support their persecution. Though judging from your phrasing I suspect you choose to pretend that gay people don't really exist...
Go to any country outside of the liberal west and then cry me a river about the "persecution" of homosexuals by the Church.
[Disappointed]

What is your point? That it's ok to be vile so long as somebody else is worse?
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Wow, Boogie can accurately predict what other people are doing without knowing them in any way?

It's a talent I exploit to the full. [Angel]
Except you don't. Exploiting it to the full would involve making serious money from it, not posting on a forum about some random bloke who has long since wandered off.

Which is a waste of money making time. And mean fun. Why have a battle of wits with someone unarmed who has gone away? It doesn't make you look clever; quite the opposite.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yeah, the image I am getting is of a bunch of highschoolers passing a
slam book around.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, the image I am getting is of a bunch of highschoolers passing a
slam book around.

Wow, how unlike every other thread in Hell.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Go to any country outside of the liberal west and then cry me a river about the "persecution" of homosexuals by the Church.
[Disappointed]

What is your point? That it's ok to be vile so long as somebody else is worse?
That's how I read it, too. "Yeah so I intentionally jumped the curb (kerb) and killed five people. Look at how many people died in Syria today and cry me a river."
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Wow, Boogie can accurately predict what other people are doing without knowing them in any way?

It's a talent I exploit to the full. [Angel]
Except you don't. Exploiting it to the full would involve making serious money from it, not posting on a forum about some random bloke who has long since wandered off.

You didn't seem to notice I was being sarky - you should be able to recognise that from your name.

But, more seriously, like I said - I was getting at the attitude, not the bloke.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, the image I am getting is of a bunch of highschoolers passing a
slam book around.

Wow, how unlike every other thread in Hell.
No, most Hell threads are like a wet toilet paper fight in the locker room.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
No, most Hell threads are like a wet toilet paper fight in the locker room.

Your locker room was clearly far more interesting than mine ever was.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
From what I could see through the slats in the locker.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
[Overused]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
From what I could see through the slats in the locker.

But in which locker room?
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
And why were you hiding in the locker, instead of coming out and enjoying the fun? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Dear God, the English.)

I was implying I was crammed into the locker by hooligans, dearie. Have a zwieback and go back to sleep.

(Ok, in all seriousness, don't nerdy kids get shut into lockers in the UK?)
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Dear God, the English.)

I was implying I was crammed into the locker by hooligans, dearie. Have a zwieback and go back to sleep.

(Ok, in all seriousness, don't nerdy kids get shut into lockers in the UK?)

Most UK schools have very few lockers, and they are usually no more than 1-2 cubic feet so... no, not really.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Dear God, the English.)

I was implying I was crammed into the locker by hooligans, dearie. Have a zwieback and go back to sleep.

(Ok, in all seriousness, don't nerdy kids get shut into lockers in the UK?)

Most UK schools have very few lockers, and they are usually no more than 1-2 cubic feet so... no, not really.
If any ... my sons' high school had none, they had to carry all equipment and coats with them.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought for a minute it said the sluts in the locker, and then I thought, but that would be a very very naughty thing to say, wouldn't it? In fact, it would be a very naughty thing to even think, but damn it, I've gone and done it now. Question: does thinking something count in the overall itemization of one's horribleness?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Question: does thinking something count in the overall itemization of one's horribleness?

Depends. Can you guess what I think of where this thread has been heading for several pages?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I am just surprised that you didn't catch on to all the leg-humping going on, say, about 3 weeks ago.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh, I caught on. I just didn't say anything. Didn't seem my place what with me being one of the queers who was chewing out the crypto-homophobes in the first place.

That was a while ago, though, wasn't it.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Quite a long while ago.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought for a minute it said the sluts in the locker

Are you saying Kelly was a slut in a locker?
[Eek!]

And yeah, the only place I've really come across lockers is at the local swimming pools, where they are about 1m by 30cm. Only big enough to fit someone in if you folded them up first... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought for a minute it said the sluts in the locker

Are you saying Kelly was a slut in a locker?
[Eek!]

I thought he was saying I was cavorting around with sluts in a locker, which would definitely be more interesting...
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
And way more fun [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
MInd you, I think our pupils will push people into spaces that present themselves as available. In the early 60s,some girls at the school I attended were reported as having pushed a teacher into a cupboard. It was about 3 ft tall, and somewhat wider. She was a short teacher. Only not that short. And I was squashed into a sort of gap between a chimney breast and a wall, about a foot wide and 18 ins deep. (That was very odd, as it was an empty space, as tall as the room, but I felt something push me out. Years later, when the building was used for in-service training, I went back to check it out, and they had blocked off the space and papered it over.)
I think it is a good thing if we don't have those tall lockers - they would be used.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
We should be talking about closets.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, the image I am getting is of a bunch of highschoolers passing a
slam book around.

Wow, how unlike every other thread in Hell.
No, most Hell threads are like a wet toilet paper fight in the locker room.
You're just trying to make passing the slam book around look like a good alternative.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, the image I am getting is of a bunch of highschoolers passing a
slam book around.

Wow, how unlike every other thread in Hell.
No, most Hell threads are like a wet toilet paper fight in the locker room.
You're just trying to make passing the slam book around look like a good alternative.
With some success, it must be added. [Snore]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, that's where the zwieback went.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We should be talking about closets.

Excellent point!
 
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
On the contrary, it is the most worthwhile thing to be loving toward those who have sexual attractions toward their own sex. How is loving one's neighbour ever "not worth much"?

I think the point is that there is very little that is "loving" about being nice to someone's face then using your money to support their persecution. Though judging from your phrasing I suspect you choose to pretend that gay people don't really exist...
Go to any country outside of the liberal west and then cry me a river about the "persecution" of homosexuals by the Church.
[Disappointed]

What is your point? That it's ok to be vile so long as somebody else is worse?
It's not "vile" to believe that marriage is not a thing open to two people of the same sex. It is normal Christianity.
 
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Go to any country outside of the liberal west and then cry me a river about the "persecution" of homosexuals by the Church.
[Disappointed]

What is your point? That it's ok to be vile so long as somebody else is worse?
That's how I read it, too. "Yeah so I intentionally jumped the curb (kerb) and killed five people. Look at how many people died in Syria today and cry me a river."
No, it's not a difference between more and less persecution. It is about persecution and not-persecution.

Homosexuals in the UK are emphatically NOT a "persecuted" demographic. It's like when Christians kick off about being "persecuted" in the UK.

We're not. End of. Look at Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. Look at the Christian martyrs from the start to the present day.

Do homosexuals face anything similar today, outside of the developing world and the arab world? No, they do not. And nor do we.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Oh do fuck off. You can't abandon a discussion for 2 months and then expect anyone to bother responding to you when you repeat yourself.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Do homosexuals face anything similar today, outside of the developing world and the arab world? No, they do not. And nor do we.

Go tell Matthew Shepard's parents that. They'll be delighted to hear how much things have changed since their son was murdered.

[ 30. November 2013, 22:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
But persecution doesn't happen often.

[ 01. December 2013, 16:22: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
One can be fired merely for being gay in 29 US states. Freedom!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One can be fired merely for being gay in 29 US states. Freedom!

Freedom for employers! Yay!
 
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But persecution doesn't happen often.

This is what I meant. Given that 'hate crime' includes being called a name or spoken to in a disrespectful manner, and most of those attacks have to be caveated as 'alleged', rather underlines what I was saying.

Nobody is imprisoned or forced out of their country, nobody is bombed, and everyone's right to pursue their religion and sexuality is legally protected.

[ 05. December 2013, 21:41: Message edited by: Invictus_88 ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But persecution doesn't happen often.

This is what I meant. Given that 'hate crime' includes being xalled a name or spoken to in a disrespectful manner, and most of those attacks have to be caveated as 'alleged', rather underlines what I was saying.

Nobody is imprisoned or forced out of their country, nobody is bombed, and everyone's right to pursue their religion and sexuality is legally protected.

They're only mercilessly bullied resulting in astronomical suicide rates, fired from their jobs, denied insurance benefits, and occasionally attacked or murdered by drunken mobs in the west. What are they whining about?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
and everyone's right to pursue their religion and sexuality is legally protected.

Next time you rejoin the thread, how about reading the post that points out you can be fired for being gay in 29 States?

Legally protected? Hardly.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But persecution doesn't happen often.

This is what I meant. Given that 'hate crime' includes being called a name or spoken to in a disrespectful manner, and most of those attacks have to be caveated as 'alleged', rather underlines what I was saying.

Nobody is imprisoned or forced out of their country, nobody is bombed, and everyone's right to pursue their religion and sexuality is legally protected.

Congratulations on completely misreading the linked examples.
Simply because the situation is not as bad as it could be is not evidence that it is good.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0