The Obssession with Homosexuality

[Fixiwee]

Marriage is a concept because marriage makes baby's.

Marrige in the sense of the state is a legal procedure. It implies certain obligations to the married couple to the state, but also implies easier procedures of heritage and better taxes for both.
Marrige is to the state, not to biology. I can make babies without being married.

[Fragony]

Marrige is to the state, not to biology. I can make babies without being married.

Hence my amazement that they want to get married, why.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It seems they just can't keep out of other people's religion

I am absoutedly disgusted about this, I never thought I would see the day when such a solid church would consider such things. If this guy gets to keep his position, then I think that I will be forced to leave. Ideally, many in the church will break away to form a new rival Church of Scotland, which I will join. If not, it looks like I'll be joining the local fundamentalist Baptists because I'm not staying in a church that mocks the scripture like this.

[Brenus]

Anyway. nowadays only clergymen and gays wanted o get marriage... (for the French: Mis a part les cures, plus personne ne veut se marier... -Jean Ferrat-)

For the Catholic Church, marriage in one of the holly sacement, confirmed by the Concil of Trente, along side the baptism (followed by the confirmation), confession, the last rites, forget the last one.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For the Catholic Church, marriage in one of the holly sacement, confirmed by the Concil of Trente, along side the baptism (followed by the confirmation), confession, the last rites, forget the last one.

Baptism (once), Communion, Reconciliation, Confirmation (once), Matrimony, Holy Orders, & Annointing of the Sick.

Most Priests and Catholics only receive 6 of these sacraments. Only members of the deaconate typically receive all 7.

[Louis VI the Fat]

it looks like I'll be joining the local fundamentalist Baptists because I'm not staying in a church that mocks the scripture like this.

Hmm...I usually refrain from engaging in theological disputes. However, I think that there are a great many Christians out there who think of their religion as one of love, not of bigotry. They worry about their own soul. Might pray for the salvation of others. And will abstain from making final judgements of others - people like themselves, struggling with what's right and what's wrong.

Scripture says not to judge prostitutes, leppars. Not to cast the first stone. Many Christians see their religion in this manner. What is it about homosexuality that you feel one must hate them so much that one can not even be part of a kirk that refuses to ostracise gays? Didn't Jesus himself took pity on prostitutes, the outcasts, the lowest?

I still maintain that hatred of gays is not an inherently Christian duty. What's more, even amongst those Christians who do think homosexuality sinful, many are forgiving, or will leave judgement to a higher authority.
[/theological dispute from internal Christian perspective]

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have mixed feelings on homosexual clergy (though generally I advocate a don't ask don't tell policy - a Catholic priest shouldn't be having sexual relations with anyone, so it isn't anybody's matter whether he is gay or straight), and as I have stated, I can see both sides of the issue on gay marriage.

However, there is one thing about gay marriage that I can never compromise on. Gay marriage must never be forced on a Church, and if the Catholic Church allows gay marriage voluntarily I will consider leaving.

[Samurai Waki]

I have mixed feelings on homosexual clergy (though generally I advocate a don't ask don't tell policy - a Catholic priest shouldn't be having sexual relations with anyone.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Celibacy was a poor decision made by a string of Popes who were more concerned about money, taxation, and inheritance, than allowing the clergy to properly conduct religious services. 'twas a different time then, and it should be considered null and void by today's standards. Alas, it takes a long time for the Catholic Church to change it's mind, considering Galileo was only recently relieved of his excommunication. Besides exclusivity and spirituality has never jived with me.

[Fragony]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion. There can be no such unity between same sexes, they should be instinctively aware of that, they simply can't do that. There are some things you can't have no matter how much you want it. Pas possible, shouldn't want it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Celibacy was a poor decision made by a string of Popes who were more concerned about money, taxation, and inheritance, than allowing the clergy to properly conduct religious services. 'twas a different time then, and it should be considered null and void by today's standards. Alas, it takes a long time for the Catholic Church to change it's mind, considering Galileo was only recently relieved of his excommunication. Besides exclusivity and spirituality has never jived with me.

Two things:

1. The celibacy of the clergy was a way to deal with the endemic corruption of Church benifices, and should be seen in that light.

2. Loving God "with your whole heart" means loving him first, before all others. This raises the question of whether a priest, who should definately love God with his whole heart, should marry anyway. Your wife would always come second to your God. One wonders if that makes for a happy marriage, unless she feels the same way.

Though, it must be said, such a union, where both love God first and each other second, would seem to litterally conform to the definition of "Holy Matrimony", because the marriage itself would be an active act of worship.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know that we all need forgivness, homosexuals are no different. I would be delighted if they would attent our churches as part of the congregation, and seriously listen to sound gospel. I don't care if they are homosexuals, prositutues, heck even murderers - they are always welcome to join the congregation and I would not want them to think otherwise.

The problem is that this fellow who wants to become a minister is denying that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Yes God is forgiving, but a sign of forgiveness is realising the state of your sin, whether it is due to being homosexual, or just general flaws that we all have.

You may have noticed I am pretty anti-clerical, and so I would not even have a problem with a homosexual being a minister, since ministers are no different from the rest of us - so long as he/she acknowledged that homosexaulity is wrong according to the Bible.

It's the fact they are saying that homosexuality is OK that is annoying me. I know some of us Christians come across as having a "holier than thou" type attitude, but I am not judging this man as lesser than myself, God forgive me if I should ever think such a thing. But that does not mean that I am not aware of sin for what it is, otherwise I could not have realised my own sins. I do not want the Kirk to teach that sinful deeds are in any way godly, and this dispute is threating to cause the biggest single blow to the Kirk since the disruption of 1843.

[Scurvy]

Yes God is forgiving, but a sign of forgiveness is realising the state of your sin, whether it is due to being homosexual, or just general flaws that we all have.

Not sure I get this, its all very well recognising your own sinful behaviour, but not then attempting to change that behaviour is surely worse than not recognising it at all?

From an external, non-theological perspective, I think that an ideology that names homosexuality 'sinful', ie, inferior, is disgraceful and bigoted.

my thoughts exactly...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Louis, your quote from the "Symposium" is badly taken, Socrates advocated non-sexual love as the ultimate form in the dialogue and resisted the homosexual advances of Alcibidies. While Plato may himself have been a homosexual, and was certainly enamoured of Socrates; "Platonic love" is explicitiely non-sexual.

As far as Greek texts, you will have to cite a Patriarch from before 300 AD or similar aurthority if you wish to argue for "legitimate" homosexuality in Christianity. Nicaea banned homosexuality, I believe. Certainly John's Gospel was edited before then in order to remove an ambidious massage used by Greeks to argue for homosexuality. Personally I think the editing was unnecessary, the passage was vety tame.