Home

TheSinner.net

Equality Laws

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re: Equality Laws

Postby macgamer on Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:03 pm

jollytiddlywink wrote:1. Bear in mind the not-inconsiderable odds that they might foster a young teen who is LGBTQ. What then? The child mentions this to their foster parents and gets the standard, "It's a sin and you're going to hell." The absolute last thing the child needs is foster parents who will tell them that they "aren't normal," which is what the couple have said they believe. So, this creates something like a 1-in-10 risk of them doing serious harm to a child in their care.
I note that neither you nor the article you posted mentions that the judges (plural!) called the couple's claims "a travesty of reality."

I agree simply saying 'It's a sin, you're going to hell' is hardly a helpful response. I do think this case is worth considering for this discussion because it is another example of conscience and belief being ruled 'dangerous' or 'unacceptably' by the state and/or judiciary. If holding orthodox views on the sinfulness of homosexual [N.B.] acts is a risk to children who might be fostered by such potential parents then why shouldn't the state intervene to take children away from natural parents who hold such views. If a stand point is correct it should have a more universal applicability.

2. The couple are on very dubious ground to suggest that their position on homosexuality is 'mainstream Christianity.' There are Christian denominations which will bless gay unions, and others which want to hold full-blown gay weddings just as soon as the laws of this country permit them. Other churches condemn homosexuality (and homosexuals, none of this love-the-sinner business) to abuse and even to death. Uganda is a case in point. I'm not sure if you can still see the documentary on BBC iPlayer, but here's the article:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/11/sc ... in-uganda/

The documentary featured multiple interviews with Ugandans who held mainstream Christian views, advocating that gay people should be locked up for long periods, or for life, or executed. They openly and willingly said this on camera. And ministers from the US go there and join the Ugandan "men of god" in preaching such stuff. So I don't much care for people sounding off about 'Christian sexual ethics' or 'mainstream Christian beliefs,' because neither phrase holds any water between one denomination and the next or one believer and the next (macgamer thinks being gay is a sin, but it didn't bother my catholic flatmate last year one bit).

And I would completely reject any law making homosexual acts illegal, this is something I've stated on this message board numerous times before. What is going on in Uganda is entirely unjust and to be rightfully condemned. Yes I think homosexual acts are sinful, but it is not the state's role to 'punish' those who carry out those acts. To have homosexual attraction or inclinations is not sinful and people are have them do not 'bother me'. I do not think I can make myself clearer than that. There is a distinction between acts (sinful) and inclination (not sinful). What does bother me is being misunderstood or being misrepresented as someone who's raison d'etre is to hate various people - I do not. I have bountiful shortcomings of my own to concern myself with. As LonelyPilgrim so astutely observed citizens of a state should have the right to freedom of conscience.

Lastly, I don't think that even sincerely held religious beliefs that gays are horrid and hell-bound are really all that worthy of protection. The issue is one of full and equal participation for a class of people in civil life in this country, against a very small, incidental, and hardly agreed-upon part of some people's religious beliefs, the central issues of which, for Christians, concern Jesus and salvation.

No so:
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2358 wrote:The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.


At the same time it states in the preceding paragraph:
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2357 wrote:Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[141] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[142] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
142 CDF, Persona humana 8.)

Well the Catholic Church has 1.2bn members supposedly (depending on your definition of 'Catholic') and if the teaching authority of that many Christians has decided since its beginning that homosexual acts are sinful, I'd hardly call that insignificant. However I doubt I'll convince you. Jesus and salvation is absolutely central, but so too is justification in order to receive that salvation. The judgement is of course up to God in the end, but the Church's duty is to try preach the truth with the compassion that Christ would have.

When I interact with gay people I do not preach at them, if they discover that I'm a Catholic then they will generally already know my views. If they wish to bring up the topic, then I would attempt to explain why I believe what I do, ensuring that they understand that I do not hate them. Christians try to see Christ in everyone, I try to do the same.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:12 pm

macgamer wrote:If a state does not permit freedom of conscience in negative actions, i.e. refusing to do something, then the state has become rather illiberal indeed.


The word "liberal" really has become a misused word, of late. Helped (in part) by people like David Cameron claiming to be one. J.S.Mill, liberalism's poster boy, summed it up as: you can do whatever you like, so long as what you do doesn't stop other people from doing what they want to do.

If someone has booked (and travelled to) your B&B, turning them away at the door because of your beliefs is not a liberal thing to do. It positively lacks liberalism. If liberalism were a parrot, this one would very much be dead.

Christianity isn't anti-gay, Macgamer. You can quote Natural Law and all of the medieval theologians you care to name, but the base, the home, the foundation and the starting-point for everything that it means to be a Christian said not a single word against gay people.

If the B&B couple run their business on a Sunday, serve bacon for breakfast while wearing clothing of more than one fabric... they're a living, breathing incarnation of fucking hypocrisy. And bigotted, at that. Let the law slap them in the face with the full might that it can muster. Damn them and damn everyone who supports them.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:09 am

Sigh. It seems, macgamer as if you haven't really read what I wrote. Your replies are only tangentially related to my points.

macgamer wrote:
jollytiddlywink wrote:1. Bear in mind the not-inconsiderable odds that they might foster a young teen who is LGBTQ. What then? ...foster parents will tell them that they "aren't normal," which is what the couple have said they believe.


I agree simply saying 'It's a sin, you're going to hell' is hardly a helpful response. I do think this case is worth considering for this discussion because it is another example of conscience and belief being ruled 'dangerous' or 'unacceptably' by the state and/or judiciary. If holding orthodox views on the sinfulness of homosexual [N.B.] acts is a risk to children who might be fostered by such potential parents then why shouldn't the state intervene to take children away from natural parents who hold such views. If a stand point is correct it should have a more universal applicability.


What you are suggesting (ie the point about 'acts' rather than inclination) is NOT what the couple believe. They hold, and I quote, that "having a different sexual orientation is unnatural and wrong." For them it is NOT about acts, but about BEING. As for the couple replying that its a sin and the child is going to hell, you're right, it is not a helpful response at all.
And don't pretend that the couple are martyrs to conscience and are banned from fostering. They aren't. It seems that the local authority is still willing to allow them to foster short-term. And it might interest you to know that Chief Justice Laws, one of the panel who wrote that the couple's claims were "a travesty of reality," is a devout christian and churchwarden. Not quite the type to be ruling religious belief 'dangerous,' one would think!

macgamer wrote:
jollytiddlywink wrote:2. The couple are on very dubious ground to suggest that their position on homosexuality is 'mainstream Christianity.' There are Christian denominations which will bless gay unions, and others which want to hold full-blown gay weddings just as soon as the laws of this country permit them. Other churches condemn homosexuality (and homosexuals, none of this love-the-sinner business) to abuse and even to death. Uganda is a case in point.... So I don't much care for people sounding off about 'Christian sexual ethics' or 'mainstream Christian beliefs,' because neither phrase holds any water between one denomination and the next or one believer and the next...


And I would completely reject any law making homosexual acts illegal, this is something I've stated on this message board numerous times before. What is going on in Uganda is entirely unjust and to be rightfully condemned. Yes I think homosexual acts are sinful, but it is not the state's role to 'punish' those who carry out those acts...


I'm afraid I must submit that you're missing my point again. I'm not suggesting that you want to make being gay illegal at all. My point concerns the near impossibility of defining a 'mainstream Christian belief' unless you become more specific. A mainstream catholic belief, or baptist belief, or C of England, or C of Scotland, would be less problematic, but as I pointed out, there are christian denominations who want to marry gay people, and others (as in Uganda, and a few places in States) who want to execute them. Rather a gulf separates the two!
And if it is not the state's role to punish gay people, why is it the state's role to implicitly do so by standing aside so that others can punish gays by infringing on their rights?

jollytiddlywink wrote:Lastly, I don't think that even sincerely held religious beliefs that gays are horrid and hell-bound are really all that worthy of protection. The issue is one of full and equal participation for a class of people in civil life in this country, against a very small, incidental, and hardly agreed-upon part of some people's religious beliefs, the central issues of which, for Christians, concern Jesus and salvation.


Again, you misunderstood what I wrote. You replied with a lot of unneeded chapter and verse and an assertion of there being lots and lots of catholics in the world. Neither chapter nor verse nor number of claimed adherents matters.

My point is that, even if you accept the mistranslations of the two or three verses in the bible which are usually cited against homosexuality, such things are far from the central issues and beliefs of christians (Jesus and salvation). Claiming that not being permitted to discriminate against gay people deprives one of religious liberty is like me claiming that because I can't go waltzing into the Houses of Parliament at any time, without some sort of reason to be there, I have no freedom of movement in Britain. It is to blow a small, particular and justifiable asterisk on total freedom of conscience totally out of proportion. If 'thou shalt not house homos in thine B&B' was a commandment, then you might have a better case that freedom of conscience was being impinged... but even then, it doesn't stop you believing in Jesus and salvation through whichever method your branch of the faith says provides salvation.

My point is that disapproving of homosexuality is not an important part of christian belief; some christians don't disapprove at all, and they are still christians, aren't they?
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:37 pm

Here's an interesting one for the 'marriage is a sacred institution' christian crowd to consider;
The Old Testament in full of polygamy, and the New Testament is nearly dead-set against marriage of any form, because christians should be celibate for god!
It might also be worth mentioning Ruth and Naomi, as well as Jonathon and David.
It's all in here.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/133245874 ... ge?ps=cprs
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:33 pm

LonelyPilgrim wrote:If the right of religious conscience is protected (and it's hard to see how the free exercise of religion can be protected if religious conscience isn't), then anti-discrimination laws of this type raise a problem. Requiring people who believe that homosexuality is sinful to provide a bed to a homosexual couple if they wish to operate a bed and breakfast or hotel creates a religious test for full participation in the economic life of the country. Or, formulated negatively, anti-discrimination laws may bar those who hold certain religious beliefs from engaging in their economic rights. Effectively, this results in the state backwardly legislating what religious beliefs are acceptable if one wants to enjoy the full rights of citizenship.


I know this isn't really an answer to your post, as such, but it seems relevant. It certainly covers very similar ground, but concerns US law. So far, it seems that US law, in this instance, falls on the same side of the issue that the law here does, although in this case, the professional obligations of a councillor are spelled out in black and white, just as they are for doctors, etc.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News ... U_Student/
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby Anon. on Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:07 pm

macgamer wrote:...orthodox views on the sinfulness of homosexual [N.B.] acts


As jollytiddlywink points out, the view held by the Johnses seems to be that to be homosexual is sinful, not merely to engage in homosexual acts.

I always understood from the Sermon on the Mount that as, a general rule, sinfulness is in a desire or inclination to do something, not whether or not one actually acts on that desire. Thoughtcrime, in fact. Which would tend to support the Johnses' way of looking at the issue.

How do you, as a Christian, get around that?
Anon.
 
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby Senethro on Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:50 pm

That macgamer even tries to excuse their views by saying they're orthodox just makes me want to vomit.
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby Senethro on Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:53 pm

Also the hugely generous in spirit allowance that a person may be homosexual (OR AN UNFORTUNATE VICTIM OF SAME SEX ATTRACTION!!!!) and saved just as long as they behave like a straight person. Thats lawyerly and makes me want to vomit too. What a fake and mean concession to modernity and tolerance.
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby macgamer on Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:12 pm

Anon. wrote:
macgamer wrote:...orthodox views on the sinfulness of homosexual [N.B.] acts


As jollytiddlywink points out, the view held by the Johnses seems to be that to be homosexual is sinful, not merely to engage in homosexual acts.

I always understood from the Sermon on the Mount that as, a general rule, sinfulness is in a desire or inclination to do something, not whether or not one actually acts on that desire. Thoughtcrime, in fact. Which would tend to support the Johnses' way of looking at the issue.

How do you, as a Christian, get around that?

There is the inclination, which is not chosen by the individual and therefore not sinful. Impure thoughts, if entertained, are sinful. Transitory thoughts are not sinful if they are not entertained.

Jesus was talking about impure thoughts when he said that looking at a woman lustfully means that you have already committed adultery with her in your mind. To do that one must entertain that thought actively.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby macgamer on Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:32 pm

Senethro wrote:That macgamer even tries to excuse their views by saying they're orthodox just makes me want to vomit.

My, you are sensitive aren't you?

I endeavour to learn about the teachings of the Church and why it teaches what it does. I consider the teaching and choose to assent to it with a free conscience. I try to form my conscience not by the vagaries of the Zeitgeist, but rather informed by the thoughts and writings of long-term stable consensus found within the Church.
Senethro wrote:Also the hugely generous in spirit allowance that a person may be homosexual (OR AN UNFORTUNATE VICTIM OF SAME SEX ATTRACTION!!!!) and saved just as long as they behave like a straight person. Thats lawyerly and makes me want to vomit too. What a fake and mean concession to modernity and tolerance.

Perhaps I should retrain as a lawyer.

Homosexuality / same sex attraction is indeed unfortunate in a sense.

Salvation is connected to justification. I'm not aware of which Christian denomination the Johns belong to, but their criteria for justification may be different. Certainly if they are of a Baptist persuasion I, as a Catholic, will be headed somewhere unpleasant in their view.

Compassion is about telling the truth, not making concessions to modernity, but it also calls for understanding of people's situations. People are free to act according to their own consciences, but everyone should anticipate that they may encourage others or times where the formation of their conscience may be challenged.

God is the final arbiter in these matters and I take comfort in the words of the Prophet Joel:

'For He is all tenderness and compassion, slow to anger, rich in graciousness and ready to relent.'
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby Senethro on Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:40 pm

macgamer wrote:
Senethro wrote:That macgamer even tries to excuse their views by saying they're orthodox just makes me want to vomit.

My, you are sensitive aren't you?

I endeavour to learn about the teachings of the Church and why it teaches what it does. I consider the teaching and choose to assent to it with a free conscience. I try to form my conscience not by the vagaries of the Zeitgeist, but rather informed by the thoughts and writings of long-term stable consensus found within the Church.


What, do you not like being called out on your bullshit appeal to tradition/majority belief in some circumstances? Let me just make this clear, I find what you are saying as revolting as if you were defending racism the same way.

Pah, "vagaries of the zeitgeist" indeed, as if the much tortured traditions of a bunch of bronze age proto-jews are a better moral compass. I'd challenge every word of "long-term stable consensus" and contrast teh thoughts and writings with the history of actions and aggressions, both inward and outward.

Senethro wrote:Also the hugely generous in spirit allowance that a person may be homosexual (OR AN UNFORTUNATE VICTIM OF SAME SEX ATTRACTION!!!!) and saved just as long as they behave like a straight person. Thats lawyerly and makes me want to vomit too. What a fake and mean concession to modernity and tolerance.

Perhaps I should retrain as a lawyer.

Homosexuality / same sex attraction is indeed unfortunate in a sense.

False, condescending, insincere pity that self-congratulatorily believes itself magnanimus. HooooaaaAAARRKKK!

Salvation is connected to justification. I'm not aware of which Christian denomination the Johns belong to, but their criteria for justification may be different. Certainly if they are of a Baptist persuasion I, as a Catholic, will be headed somewhere unpleasant in their view.

Does it never bother you how obviously ridiculous denominations and cults have the same authority as Catholicism? i.e. wholly self declared.

Compassion is about telling the truth, not making concessions to modernity, but it also calls for understanding of people's situations. People are free to act according to their own consciences, but everyone should anticipate that they may encourage others or times where the formation of their conscience may be challenged.

Its not about compassion, its about control. Church doctrine concedes to modernity when to go against it would result in more people abandoning the faith than otherwise. This leads to other problems where some cultures develop at different rates or in different directions. Indeed, I'd place a sporting bet on something resembling a schism in the Catholic Church within my lifetime with the split primarily following the geography of continents.

God is the final arbiter in these matters and I take comfort in the words of the Prophet Joel:

'For He is all tenderness and compassion, slow to anger, rich in graciousness and ready to relent.'
[/quote]
This is the same god that has eternal punishment lined up for the majority of humanity alive today, right? Fuck him. No "mysterious ways" or saying how christianity is ubiquitous these days so everyoen has a fair chance. The game is rigged and the dealer is a prick. Thats my judgement of him. If god were real, it would be necessary to rebel against him.
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby Anon. on Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:36 pm

macgamer wrote:There is the inclination, which is not chosen by the individual and therefore not sinful.


I'd hardly say original sin was chosen by the individual, either.
Anon.
 
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Equality Laws

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:58 am

macgamer wrote:I try to form my conscience not by the vagaries of the Zeitgeist, but rather informed by the thoughts and writings of long-term stable consensus found within the Church.

So, you're still working with the Zeitgeist - an extinct Zeitgeist rather than a contemporary one. Argument by authority (or, indeed, argument by longevity) are not good arguments.

Lots of very very bad ideas were held "long-term" and remained bad. Calling anything within the Christian schism-fest "stable" is, also, laughable.

Christ wasn't anti-homosexual. Anyone who is and uses their faith to justify it... well, they are many things, but they certainly aren't Christians. Christ said so (translation: Christ didn't say so).

But... you know all of the above to be true, already (it's certainly been raised often enough). So you're being false to us, which is all the easier if you are (first) being false to yourself. I'm pretty sure that there's a commandment about that, too.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Equality Laws

Postby jollytiddlywink on Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:27 pm

macgamer wrote:Well the Catholic Church has 1.2bn members supposedly (depending on your definition of 'Catholic') and if the teaching authority of that many Christians has decided since its beginning that homosexual acts are sinful, I'd hardly call that insignificant.


The key word there is 'supposedly.' While this is hardly unimpeachable evidence, I know a large number of 'catholics' who never go to church, don't give a damn what the pope thinks, and don't believe in god. As Dara O'Briain said, "Haven't been to church in years, don't believe in god, but still catholic, obviously!"

Rather more to the point, you are still avoiding my point about there being no such thing as an "orthodox, mainstream" christian position on sexuality. Some christian churches want to perform gay and lesbian weddings (but can't, because of the current laws... how's that for religious freedom?), and others, as in Uganda, want to execute gay and lesbian people. Even within denominations, like catholicism, the matter is far from monolithic, although I doubt you'll accept it. Just in case, here's the evidence:
In the US, 43% of catholics support gay marriages, and 71% of them support "civil marriages" for gay people, and 60% support adoption rights for gay and lesbian parents.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/24/su ... ay-rights/

So, please recognise that any attempt to speak of orthodox or mainstream christian views on matters of sexuality is a load of rubbish. At most, where you think the mainstream is reflects nothing more than where you yourself stand.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Previous

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

cron