|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking crypto-homophobes
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Thanks for clarifying, Mudfrog.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
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"?
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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]](wink.gif) ), 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 ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
...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]](biggrin.gif)
[ 15. August 2013, 19:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I read this entire thread and the only thing I can think is holy God in heaven, heterosexuals are really ridiculously obsessed with sex.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
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.
Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Huia
[ 15. August 2013, 19:18: Message edited by: Huia ]
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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 ), 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.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm so glad that I'm not a member of what Mudfrog defines as Church.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
Yeah, but straight people can do what they want with their privilege. These gay people swan around like they've got a right.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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 ), 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.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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].
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Kelly : We couldn't find the page you requested is what I get.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The link is broken, Kelly. (Not that I find the quote particularly informative...)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
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.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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 . . .
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
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.
Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples
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.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Absolute nonsense and with no Biblical authority whatsoever.
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?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
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.
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.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
