Weird how the emerging debate over Francis is almost a re-run of the debate over Obama - has he failed to deliver or is it the synod/congress's fault for blocking his plans?
Five years later:
[quote]Michael Moore: Francis will be remembered as first South American pope, ‘and that’s it’[/quote]
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;46275438]He already said that "gay people wouldn't go to hell" though a Church spokesperson twisted it later.
...[/QUOTE]
No, he said it wasn't his place to judge gay people, the stance being that it's still a sin they'd have to answer to god for.
It's the one step forwards, two steps back deal. He's fine with gay people, but being gay is still a sin. He's not going to judge gay people, but god will, etc.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46282170]No, he said it wasn't his place to judge gay people, the stance being that it's still a sin they'd have to answer to god for.
It's the one step forwards, two steps back deal. He's fine with gay people, but being gay is still a sin. He's not going to judge gay people, but god will, etc.[/QUOTE]
sort of this, but the big step forward is that the church is actually openly talking about gays and even more that there's a vocal minority (sofar) that actually embraces homosexuality to the extent that gays aren't instantly damned to hell for the sin of being gay
[QUOTE=Explosions;46273747]How about instead of diminishing everyone we just give equal rights to the oppressed minority?[/QUOTE]
You wouldn't have a Jewish or an Amish wedding, now would ya?
Or do you think you should have the right to that?
Even as a flamboyant homosexual who has no interest in their long-lasting religious customs and traditions? (just a rough example)
I'm just finding it weird.. Gays who want the equal rights and opportunity to marry under the same religious institution that has oppressed them to this very day. Or maybe not always directly oppressed, but it was always about "the sanctity" of "Man, Woman and God," and so on.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46284576]You wouldn't have a Jewish or an Amish wedding, now would ya?
Or do you think you should have the right to that?
Even as a flamboyant homosexual who has no interest in their long-lasting religious customs and traditions? (just a rough example)
I'm just finding it weird.. Gays who want the equal rights and opportunity to marry under the same religious institution that has oppressed them to this very day. Or maybe not always directly oppressed, but it was always about "the sanctity" of "Man, Woman and God," and so on.[/QUOTE]
Besides the irrelevance of things like tradition, customs and the length of lasting, the irrelevance of a flamboyant homosexual and a straight-acting homosexual and the suggestion that people don't want anything to do with a group that has oppressed them... uh... ok dw if I say besides those things it basically means besides everything you wrote. All of this is wrong.
I have been to a Catholic wedding a few times. They're quite nice. There is a bit about love and the connection between two people it provides that is awesomely romantic until you realise that the full belief of the Catholic church is: if you're gay that love is impossible. That hurts more than a little. The memory of a particular wedding is one of the reasons I am no longer Catholic, I was crying almost but not for the same reasons everyone else was.
All the things you listed, the tradition, custom and long lasting are fallacy. Just because they've done it for centuries doesn't mean it's right. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Just that man and woman marriage is one form. Never does it say two men or two women can't marry. Meanwhile it does explicitly rule out interracial marriage, endorses the forced marriage of a brother to the widow of his other brother (even if he's married, aka polyamory is ok in the bible!). If you were raped by someone Deuteronomy says you should marry them straight away!
So the tradition of marriage comes from administrative rulings by the Catholic church and can be changed with full support from biblical texts in favour of same sex marriage.
I am not well versed on Jewish or Amish religions but I imagine similar rulings have been made administratively. AKA homosexual marriage has always only been implicitly banned.
Religion is a guidance for a lot of people, when they realise they're gay and they start trying to find their omnipotent being's guidance having almost their entire population in their religion against them, at least on paper if not in reality, is crippling. Can't abide by that.
The first step is just non-religious legalisation of marriage. Then make the religious peops realise that god made gay people too and that they're just as capable and valuable in a loving relationship as straight people. Religion does a lot of good and a lot of bad, both physically in the world and mentally to individual people. Just because the rational gay people can shrug off the oppression doesn't mean the struggling teen can. A church sermon on the evilness of homosexuality can turn a mentally stable gay person to a struggling one, a struggling one to depression and a depressed one to suicide.
I don't care about their religious customs, you're right. But I'm reasonably rational in a liberalised society. I am not an advocate for total equality because I want or need it for myself or for other rational alternative sexualities. I care about it because of the depressed teenager who got the short end of the stick in an overly religious backwater town. Their life might depend on it.
People blaming Francis for this are just like people blaming Obama for all of America's problems.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46273654]Yeah fuck all that good will we need to stick to the dogma.
Francis is such a great guy right?[/QUOTE]
I'd much rather see a slow, steady movement then a schism within the Catholic Church.
Again.
[QUOTE=smurfy;46276222]Weird how the emerging debate over Francis is almost a re-run of the debate over Obama - has he failed to deliver or is it the synod/congress's fault for blocking his plans?
Five years later:[/QUOTE]
The two aren't even remotely relatable. Francis has to move slowly not because of the politics behind him but to prevent demonizing everyone in the religion, whereas Obama has Congress as an actual obstacle. Francis can do what he wants, but doesn't because it's dangerous to be too quick. Obama has to get permission.
[editline]20th October 2014[/editline]
I don't get the misconception when everyone in the thread has made it clear he has full power but doesn't want to alienate the followers
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46284810]Besides the irrelevance of things like tradition, customs and the length of lasting, the irrelevance of a flamboyant homosexual and a straight-acting homosexual and the suggestion that people don't want anything to do with a group that has oppressed them... uh... ok dw if I say besides those things it basically means besides everything you wrote. All of this is wrong.
I have been to a Catholic wedding a few times. They're quite nice. There is a bit about love and the connection between two people it provides that is awesomely romantic until you realise that the full belief of the Catholic church is: if you're gay that love is impossible. That hurts more than a little. The memory of a particular wedding is one of the reasons I am no longer Catholic, I was crying almost but not for the same reasons everyone else was.
All the things you listed, the tradition, custom and long lasting are fallacy. Just because they've done it for centuries doesn't mean it's right. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Just that man and woman marriage is one form. Never does it say two men or two women can't marry. Meanwhile it does explicitly rule out interracial marriage, endorses the forced marriage of a brother to the widow of his other brother (even if he's married, aka polyamory is ok in the bible!). If you were raped by someone Deuteronomy says you should marry them straight away!
So the tradition of marriage comes from administrative rulings by the Catholic church and can be changed with full support from biblical texts in favour of same sex marriage.
I am not well versed on Jewish or Amish religions but I imagine similar rulings have been made administratively. AKA homosexual marriage has always only been implicitly banned.
Religion is a guidance for a lot of people, when they realise they're gay and they start trying to find their omnipotent being's guidance having almost their entire population in their religion against them, at least on paper if not in reality, is crippling. Can't abide by that.
The first step is just non-religious legalisation of marriage. Then make the religious peops realise that god made gay people too and that they're just as capable and valuable in a loving relationship as straight people. Religion does a lot of good and a lot of bad, both physically in the world and mentally to individual people. Just because the rational gay people can shrug off the oppression doesn't mean the struggling teen can. A church sermon on the evilness of homosexuality can turn a mentally stable gay person to a struggling one, a struggling one to depression and a depressed one to suicide.
I don't care about their religious customs, you're right. But I'm reasonably rational in a liberalised society. I am not an advocate for total equality because I want or need it for myself or for other rational alternative sexualities. I care about it because of the depressed teenager who got the short end of the stick in an overly religious backwater town. Their life might depend on it.[/QUOTE]
You are technically right, the Bible doesn't explicitly say two men or two women can't get married. Doesn't even explicitly forbid it. It does, however, set a pretty strong precedent against it, moreso in the Old Testament than the New Testament. To modern Christianity, generally only the New Testament applies, so you've got four passages that condemn homosexuality:
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 1:7
The first three were written by S/Paul of Tarsus. The first one describes homosexuality in Roman culture, and is the only reference to female homosexuality; it's lumped in with idolatry. The second is much more blunt, it's the "anyone who sins can't go to heaven" verse, and it does include a reference to homosexuality. Pretty straightforward, and it's used as a hammer to drive home the "repent of your sins and believe in Jesus" thing. The third just calls homosexuals "ungodly and sinful," lumps them in with murderers et al, and says the "law" was made to control them.
That last one from Jude is just a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, and the story (myth? Legend?) of how it was burnt to the ground for homosexuality (and not for the rampant rape, theft, or just general evil-doing. Nope. Blame it on "the gays.")
So... Yeah. If anyone needed clarification that the Bible doesn't explicitly say homosexuals can't get married, there you go. It's just really strongly discouraged, but it usually just ends up being compared to every other sin in a general sort of manner. Lord knows we do those all the time. That's what the whole salvation thing was for, unless you're an early Christian writer who doesn't exactly understand salvation when it gets in the way of their holier-than-thou mentalities.
(If it's not completely clear, I agree with you entirely. Religion shouldn't have any basis on marriage, why should I care what two strangers do in their free time? That's just creepy.)
When I read that title I just imagined the pope doing a backflip.
Aren't we forgetting that homosexuality is a disorder? Marriage is about children; how can children learn about healthy gender/sexual norms from a same-sex marriage? There's no arguing your way around this. It's clearly not good for the progress of our species.
[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;46293270]Aren't we forgetting that homosexuality is a disorder? Marriage is about children; how can children learn about healthy gender/sexual norms from a same-sex marriage? There's no arguing your way around this. It's clearly not good for the progress of our species.[/QUOTE]
We're pooping out more babies than we need anyway.
Should we also throw away use of contraceptives? Forbid blow jobs/eating out as well as fingering, hand jobs and doing it in the number two? Yeah, you're being really dumb here. Not that the catholic church hasn't forbidden these in the past (and currently condemning some of them).
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46293904]We're pooping out more babies than we need anyway.
Should we also throw away use of contraceptives? Forbid blow jobs/eating out as well as fingering, hand jobs and doing it in the number two? Yeah, you're being really dumb here.[/QUOTE]
I'm honestly just hoping it's satire. It's just too ridiculous to take seriously.
[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;46293270]Aren't we forgetting that homosexuality is a disorder? Marriage is about children; how can children learn about healthy gender/sexual norms from a same-sex marriage? There's no arguing your way around this. It's clearly not good for the progress of our species.[/QUOTE]
jesus christmas I'm getting tired of hearing "marriage is for children!!", come back when the divorce rate isn't 51% and children don't have to grow up in single parent households anymore
two parents are better than only one, or none at all
[QUOTE=woolio1;46290803]You are technically right, the Bible doesn't explicitly say two men or two women can't get married. Doesn't even explicitly forbid it. It does, however, set a pretty strong precedent against it, moreso in the Old Testament than the New Testament. To modern Christianity, generally only the New Testament applies, so you've got four passages that condemn homosexuality:
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 1:7
The first three were written by S/Paul of Tarsus. The first one describes homosexuality in Roman culture, and is the only reference to female homosexuality; it's lumped in with idolatry. The second is much more blunt, it's the "anyone who sins can't go to heaven" verse, and it does include a reference to homosexuality. Pretty straightforward, and it's used as a hammer to drive home the "repent of your sins and believe in Jesus" thing. The third just calls homosexuals "ungodly and sinful," lumps them in with murderers et al, and says the "law" was made to control them.
That last one from Jude is just a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, and the story (myth? Legend?) of how it was burnt to the ground for homosexuality (and not for the rampant rape, theft, or just general evil-doing. Nope. Blame it on "the gays.")
So... Yeah. If anyone needed clarification that the Bible doesn't explicitly say homosexuals can't get married, there you go. It's just really strongly discouraged, but it usually just ends up being compared to every other sin in a general sort of manner. Lord knows we do those all the time. That's what the whole salvation thing was for, unless you're an early Christian writer who doesn't exactly understand salvation when it gets in the way of their holier-than-thou mentalities.
(If it's not completely clear, I agree with you entirely. Religion shouldn't have any basis on marriage, why should I care what two strangers do in their free time? That's just creepy.)[/QUOTE]
Even those verses don't actually, in original translations, explicitly describe male-male or female-female activity as a loving and caring relationship, but always to excess where it is actually described. Sodom and Gomorrah weren't even same sex stuff, just lust basically I think maybe. Anyway I know that they're all twisted by modern interpretations to say "no gay, k?" but that's never the main point in the verses.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46298462]Even those verses don't actually, in original translations, explicitly describe male-male or female-female activity as a loving and caring relationship, but always to excess where it is actually described. Sodom and Gomorrah weren't even same sex stuff, just lust basically I think maybe. Anyway I know that they're all twisted by modern interpretations to say "no gay, k?" but that's never the main point in the verses.[/QUOTE]
Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't just because of "the gays,"
The destruction of the cities was inevitable, as they both had rampant rape, murder, thievery, and swindling. The people were unkind and distrusted strangers. The attempted rape of the Angels By the Sodomites was basically the catalyst, the straw that broke the camels back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
