Typical media rubbish once again. Just toss in a few names of Christian leaders who advocate same-sex marriage and suggest the church is divided on this issue? This article is either deceptive journalism or evidence of a very confused writer. I noticed the reference from the Dean - a self-confessed gay!
The truth is that the church on the whole looks at these statements and wonders whether those quoted have ever really read the Bible? If you are a true follower of Jesus and believe the Bible then you would never make such statements. Have an opinion either way on this issue, that makes for healthy discussion, but please don't bring God and the Bible into it if you support the redefinition of marriage because you will only look foolish.

Many 'church ' leaders also think fornication and shacking up together has God's approval. Being bound by lust and perversion has always led to people twisting Scripture.

...The Church has never rejected the responsibility of pastoral care by limiting its extension into the homosexual community: But this article attempts to highjack debate by suggesting the great work performed in those homosexual communities by the Christian Church (of all denominations and creeds), as purely applicable to the incongruousness of homosexual marriage…Another failed article!

..The attack on "establishment-thought" through a continual barrage of “one-sided” pro-homosexual articles in OLO is becoming boring, (and obvious).

Whether or not same sex marriage is legal religious groups can limit marriage to those they wish to marry. I don't see why any religious bodies should have the right to control marriage under civil law. The issue is not morality but control. Churches and other religious bodies want to define marriage for other than their communicants. It is the same old story. The beasts of pray want control.

Just for reader information, this writer has been almost libellious
against the Catholic Church in previous comments, asserting most
Catholic priests are homosexual in the western world,
and cites the John Jay reports in the US.
[see previous thread comments link below]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13758&page=0
Alan Austin: "Certainly, the Church accepts privately that a majority of priests
in most countries are practising homosexuals without whose
ministry the Church could not operate. The John Jay reports in the US seem
to indicate that this private understanding is now coming into the open."

Nowhere, do I find the statement that a "majority of priests are homosexuals" in this report,
or that the Catholic Church privately accepts this as such. A ridiculous assertion.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf

Quite the contrary. In fact the John Jay reports, state that during the period from 1950 to 2002,
a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse.
Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations
against 4,392 priests in the USA.

That is only 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time
covered by the study. That's over a period of 50 years. These are not
civil charges by the way. Just substative accusations.

Moreover, the number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s,
declined in the 1980s, and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.

Of the 4,392 priests who were accused, police were contacted regarding
1,021 individuals and of these, 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions
and 100 prison sentences; 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations
were made after the accused priest had died.

Only 384 were ever charged out of 109,694 with valid accusations.
That is only 0.35% <--- Let me repeat 0.35%..
In other words 0.23% were convicted!!

Most no doubt were Marxist homosexuals who inflitrated
the Catholic Church with an defined agenda.

This has been well documented by Fr Malachi Martin, Michael Rose
and others. As for claiming the Catholic Church will change its doctrine on homosexual acts that's utterly ridiculous.

I see the usual suspects are out fulminating in force. Oddly enough, I agree with them in general. I too think it's stupid and inconsistent to be a religious believer and support gay marriage, but then that's because I think it's stupid and inconsistent to be a religious believer.

Surely anyone who has enough capacity for independent thought to see that gay marriage is a fair, rational, compassionate cause also has the capacity to see that zombie carpenters and Invisible Friends have no bearing on any meaningful aspects of real life and real-life decisions?

Many Ministers/Priests are mired in basically medieval superstition, merely masquerading as Religious law. The very foundation of which, is do unto other as you would be done unto. To selective discriminate against a minority due entirely to an accident of birth, is neither part of church law, or the well documented evocations of its founding fathers.
If a still unmarried, gentle, kind, compassionate Jesus walked amongst us today, with his reported exclusive preference for male company? Many church goers/church leaders/control freaks, would judge him gay?
Moreover, given that judgement, they would deny him the same "CIVIL" rights accorded to almost every other member!?
And for no other reason than entirely personal anti-Christian bigotry/prejudice?
Which by the way, is as good as forbidden by the good Samaritan parable, or the do unto others evocation.
If the entirely intolerant religious right, believe they are representing a majority view, then they ought to get behind a referendum to put this issue to rest for once and for all time.
They should also encourage all politicians to accept a conscience vote on this issue.
As others have pointed out, every minister or priest is perfectly free to follow their own conscience on this issue and refuse or consent to perform same sex marriage or not, according to their own moral judgement.
As others have pointed out they are not the law!
Nor have they a history of adhering to the letter of that law when dealing with known or confessed child abusers in their shame-filled ranks.
A genuine moral code is not a invisible cloak; that can be put on or taken off, whenever convenient!
When it comes to treating all others as they would also be treated?
[A central Christian tenant!]
Religious Leaders need not to just talk the endless talk, but walk the walk as well.
Which might well make a very pleasant change from the patently hypocritical pious pulpit pounding pontification, which has patently driven so many Church goers away, along with their pocket books!
Rhrosty.

JonJ writes his usual rubbush

'Surely anyone who has enough capacity for independent thought to see that gay marriage is a fair, rational compassionate cause also '

the acceptance of something from nothing as rational and the idiotic dogmas that flow from it. And of course it is those uncompassionate Christians who nurse aids victims and other disease ridden people throughout the world. Don't let facts get in the way of your hatred of truth JonJ.

Rhrosty:

...Joining the “rant” brigade against Christianity demeans your argument for homosexual marriage. Your obvious intelligence must draw you closer to the conclusion that religious institutions are based primarily on codes of morality. Those codes are firmly fixed in traditions based on long, trusted and tried example, which “fix” society, (as a consequence), to a code of morality which are, to a greater or lesser degree, enshrined in the laws of the Country.

...The laws in Australia are controlled through the political process. This process has proved itself more than adequately compliant to democratic expectations of minorities, to accommodate their special needs in terms of Human Rights “protections”. These protections ensure that no minority group in Australia, should suffer from persecution aimed at them by any other group; or collective attack on freedom of speech or movement, and freedom to hold individual opinions expressed through religious gatherings for example.
A small but vocal element of Homosexuals community unfortunately, have overarched the definitions which are applicable to Human Rights, by presenting the vagaries of a “right” to marry each-other, in the normally accepted manner, applicable to “Normal” heterosexuals members of society: It is simply NOT a Human Right, it is a "desire".

...It is insignificant if sections of the Christian Church choose to support the homosexual contention of this small but vocal group, and agree to assist them in their endeavours. So I point-out, although the Church is the traditional “seeder” of the moral compass of Australian society, through the construct of law, The Church should not be subjected to hysterical attacks by this small wayward group of homosexuals, as they attempt to impose narrow views onto religious Institutions in Australia by "Guilt-tripping" them!: Particularly when the Christian Church is seen as the “weak underbelly” of the religious collective, and targeted to be the first "domino" to fall.

@Runner who reckons "the acceptance of something from nothing as rational and the idiotic dogmas that flow from it."

Hilarious!

I think you'll find it's actually the Christian creation myth which suggests the Universe was created by God from nothing, using magic!

Normal people are happy to accept they don't have all the answers, rather than having to make up lame stories about magic fruit and talking snakes to explain things they don't understand.

I hope the author is right, but I suspect the churches have a way to go before they finally give up discrimination against gays. More’s the pity.

CedarJ
You say “If you are a true follower of Jesus” you will not support gay rights. Please point me to any part of Jesus’ teaching the addresses homosexuality`

>>I think you'll find it's actually the Christian creation myth which suggests the Universe was created by God from nothing, using magic!<<

Our runner has his own unique view of the world. The way he sees it the Christian creation myth counts as something from something: the world from God. Without Magic Sky Dadddy the universe must have popped into existence from nothing, at least as runner would have it. I like Bertrand Russell's words on the subject:

>>If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.<<

Although it's by no means clear that the universe was without a cause. Runner just isn't up to date on current cosmological theories and the chances of him tearing himself away from his bible to do a bit of research on the subject are not what you'd call astronomical. He thinks cosmologists - along with most other scientists - are all members of a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the Masons to lead us all into witchcraft and necromancy.

Cheers,

Tony

"Shifts in churches and synagogues toward accepting gay unions are accelerating."

The author is fanciful in believing that repetition of this assertion will increase acceptance of gay unions.

Mohammed practiced polygamy. Moses practiced monogamy. Jesus practiced nogamy.

Dear david f,
>>Whether or not same sex marriage is legal religious groups can limit marriage to those they wish to marry. I don't see why any religious bodies should have the right to control marriage under civil law.<<

I agree. However, there is a difference between e.g. the Catholic Church restricting their sacrament of marriage to only hetero-pairs, and it entering the general discussion about marriage under civil law with its views - that we might or might not agree with - on what is more and what is less beneficial for the society as a whole. Like there is a difference between how I invest my money, and when I ADVISE you that this or that investment might not be beneficial to you.

I concede that many (most?) religious leaders don’t - or don’t want to - see this difference. However, after separation of church and state, no church can CONTROL civil law, whether they like it or not. Religious leaders can only INFLUENCE their followers the same as e.g. Richard Dawkins can. And, of course, the more followers, the more weight carried by the influence.

Interesting discussion. As always. Thank you.

Some brief responses:

@CedarJ: “If you are a true follower of Jesus and believe the Bible then you would never make such statements”. No, not really, CedarJ.

One of the four key discoveries – or rediscoveries – underlying the current shifts on this issue across the Christian and Jewish worlds is that the Bible actually doesn’t say what many Christians believe it says.

There is discussion of what the Bible actually teaches about marriage here on OLO:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13758

And discussion about same-sex unions in the Bible here in The Drum:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4143802.html

@Aga: Not sure why it is “almost libellious against the Catholic Church” to assert that most Catholic priests in the western world are homosexual. It would only be libellous if you believe the claim is untrue, or if you believe being having GLBTI orientation is a bad thing. Neither belief is valid any more, Aga.

Just on accuracy, Aga, I haven’t claimed ‘most’ priests are gay – just ‘a majority’. I don’t think it is most and, so far, it is impossible to be sure.

There are now two John Jay reports, Aga, one from 2004 and another from 2011. Have you read them both?

And just one more query, Aga: Why are you bringing up child abuse? Homosexual orientation and paedophilia are quite different categories, aren’t they?

@Raycom: Re “The author is fanciful in believing that repetition of this assertion will increase acceptance of gay unions". [assertion: "Shifts in churches and synagogues toward accepting gay unions are accelerating."]

Correct, Raycom. It is not repetition of any assertion that will foster acceptance. Rather, it is the religious communities coming to understand that in recent centuries they have misunderstood some critical issues, which they are now rethinking.

@George: Yes, that is an important distinction. Many prominent Catholics now favour same-sex civil unions. But they are a long way from advocating same-sex marriage in Catholic churches.

Cheers, AA

Dear George,

As usual you make good sense. Unfortunately there is a trend for churches (the Catholic Church is not alone in this.) to claim when laws are made that are not to their liking even though it does not affect them to claim that their religious liberty is somehow infringed.

There must be, at the very least, tens of thousands of couples living together without marriage status. Can anyone tell me if there is an advantage financially, or in any other way, for people of the same gender to be officially regarded as married? Why bother? Live any way you like folks.

Noelreg

You make a valid point – official marriage doesn’t confer much benefit nowadays.

But …

If my local golf course chose to ban left-handed people I’d be offended even though I have no intention of joining. Discrimination without justification is unjust, and sends a a signal to the one discriminated against. Not allowing gays to marry implies there is something inferior about gay relationships.

I endorse your sentiment, “Live any way you like folks”. Surely than includes being married, tf that’s what gay folks like?

Good question, Noelreg: Is there “an advantage financially, or in any other way, for people of the same gender to be officially regarded as married? “

There seem to be answers to this on a number of levels.

The Baptist minister quoted in the article here sees it “in terms of justice, of compassion, of equality for all people”.

Once we understand that homosexual orientation is an innate, natural, normal and healthy state, and in almost every way a concept equivalent to heterosexual orientation, then the arguments for treating all relationships equally seem to strengthen.

Others look at the health issues. Did you see the recent pieces here on LOL about health outcomes associated with acceptance of same-sex marriage, Noelreg?

According to Rob Cover “Most recently, Amanda Villis and Danielle Hewitt from Doctors for Marriage Equality argued in On Line Opinion that there were indeed health benefits from legislating for same-sex marriage for GLBTIQ adults. Rightly, they pointed out that there is no evidence same-sex marriage is harmful to heterosexual marriages, and that accepting marriage as a right for all persons has significant benefits.”

He continues: “Villis and Hewitt rightly refer to evidence that in several US states with same-sex marriage legislation (and other GLBT-friendly programmes), there have been known population health improvements among non-heterosexual persons indicating a correlation, although a correlation does not necessarily indicate a cause-and-effect chain.”

Cover’s piece is here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14017

Financial advantages? No, not in Australia since the reforms recognising same-sex unions in 2009. But if a same-sex couple moves to another country, their financial situation may be affected.

>>Whether or not same sex marriage is legal religious groups can limit marriage to those they wish to marry. I don't see why any religious bodies should have the right to control marriage under civil law.<<

Of course they shouldn't be, but there is an even uglier side to this.

The Catholic church, for instance, no more permits the marriage of two non-Catholics than it does two of the same sex.

So, when you hear the Church or any of its little toadies who frequent fora such as this try to claim their opposition to same-sex marriage has got anything to do with their religion, then you know they're lying (probably even to themselves) because they don't display any interest in trying to have similarly "non-Catholic" marriages kept illegal as well, on the same basis.

I'm sure the real reason they hone in on homosexuality is that they just personally find the thought of gay sex either icky, or attractive, or a guilty combination of both. In my book, that's bigotry.

>>The Catholic church, for instance, no more permits the marriage of two non-Catholics than it does two of the same sex.<<

In which country does the Church have the power to not PERMIT a civil marriage of two non-Catholics? [There is obviously no point in non-Catholics expecting to receive the Catholic sacrament of marriage since that would be like somebody who has never been a citizen or resident of Australia claiming Australian social benefits from Centrelink.]

Jimmy Jones

Talking about 'normal people ' is not a good idea when you accept that certain designed body parts are put in places obviously designed to get rid of waste. And you are questioning my views as ' normal'. Abnormal is the new normal these days.

btw At least you are honest enough to admit you don't know where we come from instead of using idiotic theories like those be sprouted by pseudo scienctist.

My paternal great-grandmother had 17 children and the other side were also rather fecund. This has produced a very large family many of whom have had, or are in, relationships which are not marriages by the dictionary definition; they usually refer to their partners by first name and perhaps as "my partner". I can't find a dictionary which doesn't define "marriage" as specifically between a man and a woman.
Perhaps we could forget the sex aspect and value companionship higher.
"Partner" seems a good alternative to "husband/ wife" and would save having to alter a lot of dictionaries.

Noelreg: "Partner" seems a good alternative to "husband/ wife" and would save having to alter a lot of dictionaries.

English is already the most complex language to learn and use. It is sloppy to make it even more difficult by replacing the specific 'husband/wife' with the vague 'partner'.

@George ">>In which country does the Church have the power to not PERMIT a civil marriage of two non-Catholics?"

Of course I was referring to Catholic doctrine which doesn't permit marriage of two non-Catholics. That the Church is NOT lobbying the Government to have that particular rule of theirs legislated in civil law was rather my point.

--

@Runner "Talking about 'normal people ' is not a good idea when you accept that certain designed body parts are put in places obviously designed to get rid of waste. And you are questioning my views as ' normal'. "

But it's sauce for the goose, my dear Runner! Try to follow if your can...

You religious weirdos sure can dish it out, calling everyone "sinful" and "disordered" and whatnot as you do, but at the slightest suggestion that your mind is sub-par (which it is!) and you get all prissy and defensive!

Suck it up, princess. If you've got a glass jaw and feet of clay, then I suggest you keep your odious thoughts to yourself instead of spreading your muck on public fora such as this, where muck may get thrown back at you. Diddums.

Besides, homosexuality is perfectly normal. It is the Catholic church which is a manifestly abnormal, sick invention of ill-informed fools and unscrupulous powermongers who prey on the subnormal intellects of the willingly deluded such as you.

Oh, and by the way, the human body was not "designed" for anything, idiot! And my mind boggles as to where you "get rid of waste" if not through your pee-pee! Whatever method you're using to pass uring is DEFINITELY not normal, and you should seek help immediately!!

Cheerio, sweetie! ;-)

Runner do you have comment on oral sex, as you appear to have an issue with "body waste".

@Jimmy Jones
>>Catholic doctrine which doesn't permit marriage of two non-Catholics.<<
Well, to return to my example, it is not “Australian doctrine” but common sense that you cannot claim social benefits administered by Centrelink if you are not an Australian citizen (or resident).

>>It is the Catholic church … who prey on the subnormal intellects of the willingly deluded such as you<<.
If I remember properly, runner is not a Catholic, actually he is rather dismissive of the Catholic Church. It is people like me (and many others, including scientists like Georges Lemaitre, the co-discoverer of the Big Bang, or Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics") who, in your eyes, possess “subnormal intellects of the willingly deluded”.

@George >>If I remember properly, runner is not a Catholic

Maybe not, but they sure do prey on the deluded such as Runner.

Anyway, I find the Bible a book of hate and an obvious fiction. I have little respect for anyone who sees it as anything other, no matter what sect of Yahwehism they choose to follow (or have thrust upon them).

>> It is people like me (and many others, including scientists like Georges Lemaitre, the co-discoverer of the Big Bang, or Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics") who, in your eyes, possess “subnormal intellects of the willingly deluded”.

Did you not like being described as such? Did you feel that was a bit harsh and maybe a bit unfair, did you? Did it upset you a little bit?

Why do expect anything other than contempt when you proudly belong to an organisation which spends a disproportionate amount of its time teaching its adherents that homosexuals are "disordered", "sinful", "immoral"... and worse!

In fact, your leader recently instructed you all to believe that gay marriage threatened the "future of humanity itself". Talk about a propaganda war!

I think my childish insult just now (which is what it was) was NOTHING compared to the revolting epithets and slanderous accusations your church routinely engages in against people like me.

Have a think about that, then get back to me if you still think you deserve an apology.

Intriguing discussion. Thank you.

On the matter of Roman Catholic acceptance of same-sex unions, there does seem to be evidence of a slow but continuing shift. Not unlike other shifts where science has indicated certain teachings to be deficient. Emphasis on 'slow'.

The official teaching of the Church still regards same-sex activity as "intrinsically disordered". But there are now different interpretations emerging among theologians, bishops and others as to what this means.

Some claim "disordered" means "morally wrong"; others "complicated and difficult to understand"; others "different from the majority experience, but morally acceptable". There are yet other definitions of this vague term.

As claimed elsewhere, many within the Church accept privately that a majority of priests in most countries are practising homosexuals without whose ministry the Church could not operate.

Firm evidence for this, of course, is impossible to find. But the John Jay reports in the US and other studies do seem to validate this private understanding.

More importantly, Biblical scholars across the world in Catholic and Protestant traditions are confirming that Scripture does not in fact condemn all same-sex unions.

Awareness is gradually increasing that Scripture condemns abusive or offensive same-sex behaviour. But not faithful, monogamous unions.

Cheers, AA

@Jimmy Jones
>>get back to me if you still think you deserve an apology.<<
I never said I thought I deserved an apology. Neither would I have to apologise for addressing homosexuals in a language similar to what you used when referring to us for the simple reason that I would never use such language.

@George...

>> I never said I thought I deserved an apology.

Maybe not, but you sure seemed a bit huffy at the suggestion that your brain is disordered!

Why bother retorting with your little list of clever Catholics if you didn't think my comments were unfair?

>> Neither would I have to apologise for addressing homosexuals in a language similar to what you used when referring to us for the simple reason that I would never use such language.

The actual language and whether you'd use it personally is immaterial. You profess loyalty to the Catholic church, and I find the Catholic church an evil organisation that is waging a propaganda war against people like me, and doing real harm to the lives of real people... people who aren't even interested in your little club and it's naff rules!

Therefore, you are my enemy. What part of that don't you get?

The thing I don't understand is why you seem surprised that Catholics are so despised.

Is as though you think you don't deserve to be scorned, as though you're good people or something, and not a member of a force for evil!?

Deluded.

@Jimmy Jones
>>The actual language and whether you'd use it personally is immaterial.<<
As I indicated, this is the gist of where we differ, which has nothing to do with religion and sexual orientation.

Dear Jimmy Jones,

Nobody on this list including you is my enemy although I probably disagree to some extent with everyone on the list.

Evil and Good are theological categories. Force for evil is what one would call Manichaean thinking. You're either with me or against me. I would rather not think in theological categories but recognise the humanity in all humans. I don't care for any religion as I cannot accept supernatural entities of any sort. However, at one time I did. If I were to condemn people for accepting a religion then I would have to condemn my ancestors and my younger self.

On both sides of every barricade are human beings. It's often a matter of chance on which side we find ourselves.

@david f

>> "Evil and Good are theological categories."
I disagree they're necessarily theological categories. I find that organised religion (the Catholic church in particular) is malignant and immoral, without having to appeal to anything more than common sense.

I could write tomes on how and why, but let's start with the fact that since they all can't be true, the preponderance of lies and false hope promulgated by the lion's share of religion in the world is the very epitome of a "malignancy".

Or just to be fair, I should simply exercise the prerogative of the religious themselves, and proclaim that my vision of morality is the absolutely correct one, no question about it because I believe it so. Sauce for the goose, remember?

>> "Force for evil is what one would call Manichaean thinking. You're either with me or against me. I would rather not think in theological categories but recognise the humanity in all humans."

False dichotomy aside, I used to think like that too. But there is an organisation out there which is zealously striving to perpetuate stigma against homosexual people in society, and to have the government legislate with respect to their anti-gay theocracy.

And they are beyond reason.

Now, in my book that constitutes an enemy.

>> "I don't care for any religion as I cannot accept supernatural entities of any sort. However, at one time I did. If I were to condemn people for accepting a religion then I would have to condemn my ancestors and my younger self."

Not necessarily. I don't think a child's an idiot for believing in Santa Claus - they nearly all do. If a grown man (or a modern man) is still convinced by an obvious fiction, then there's something not right with his brain.

>> "On both sides of every barricade are human beings. It's often a matter of chance on which side we find ourselves."

Often, sure. But it takes a special kind of person to have the temerity to think you have the mandate to make everyone behave according to your own spiritual best-guesses.

Dear Jimmy Jones,

You wrote: "But it takes a special kind of person to have the temerity to think you have the mandate to make everyone behave according to your own spiritual best-guesses."

You have no reason to think that George or any Catholic in general is that sort of person. Apparently you are seeing a person as an enemy because of acts the group he belongs to has committed.

Several years ago a man said to me, "You are not going to like what I have to say." Then he launched into an attack on George Bush 2. He assumed that because I am an American I then must bear the responsibility for what Dubya did whether or not I approve of Dubya. I am an American. However, that does not mean I should be found guilty for whatever my country does.

I plead guilty to wanting to make everyone behave according to my spiritual best-guesses. I would like everyone to accept people as individuals and not regard them as an enemy because of the group they belong to.

Raycom-- Re: "partner", I could have worded it better. I think "partner' is suitable if a couple are not legally married but living as if they were, or if they are of the same gender. Neither can be said to be married. Marriage--is a contract between a man and a woman usually ( but not always) with the aim of having children.

I agree with not messing with the English language e.g the silliness of referring to actors and actresses as actors

Noelreg,

Language is not a static entity.

It's constantly evolving.

i acordan eac Noelreg... titigga eac hwam gere? Hwam ymbutan baem 12 aeldu? Faciunthic sy sum earnung cwide.

Ah, the good days of (Old) English – before any of this modern nonsense…

@david f

>> "Several years ago a man said to me, "You are not going to like what I have to say." Then he launched into an attack on George Bush 2. He assumed that because I am an American I then must bear the responsibility for what Dubya did whether or not I approve of Dubya. I am an American. However, that does not mean I should be found guilty for whatever my country does.

I don't think that analogy is apt. That you happen to live in a particular country doesn't mean you actively support the current Government's politics.

A better analogy would be if you had told that man that you were a member of a neo-Nazi political party. Would it not have been appropriate then for him to have assumed you support a neo-Nazi ideology?

Same thing when people identify as Catholics.

>> "I plead guilty to wanting to make everyone behave according to my spiritual best-guesses. I would like everyone to accept people as individuals and not regard them as an enemy because of the group they belong to."

I don't regard Catholics enemies simply because of the group they belong to. I regard them as enemies because of what belonging to that group necessarily entails; what it requires them to think and to do, natch.

Hi Jimmy,

With respect to "I don't regard Catholics [as] enemies simply because of the group they belong to. I regard them as enemies because of what belonging to that group necessarily entails; what it requires them to think and to do, natch."

What if someone was a member of the Catholic Church and had identified certain aspects of the theology and praxis which warranted reform - or abandonment - and were working internally towards that?

Would you still regard them as enemies, Jimmy?

>>I regard them as enemies because of what belonging to that group necessarily entails; what it requires them to think and to do, natch.<<

It doesn't necessarily entail anything except identifying as a Catholic: people have different ideas about what that means. For some people it's just writing 'Catholic' on the census form and some vague belief in God; for other people it's Mass every holy day of obligation and rosaries and confessions in their spare time.

Catholics come in all shapes, sizes and political outlooks: it is fair to say that the Catholic Church has more than its fair share of homophobic dicks but as with any large organisation there are all types of people and that includes plenty who see no conflict between their faith and tolerance.

And they certainly don't all toe the party line and agree with every thing the Church says because it's the Church. These are people not sheep and they are naturally going to find fault with their leadership and their policies. Most of the Catholics I know think that our nob - Cardinal Pell - is a knob: and not just the laymen. I think you'd pleasantly surprised to hear what some of the priests I've met think about Pell and his ultra-conservative crap.

Cheers,

Tony

Jimmy Jones wrote: "A better analogy would be if you had told that man that you were a member of a neo-Nazi political party. Would it not have been appropriate then for him to have assumed you support a neo-Nazi ideology?"

A person is not my enemy because of the ideology he supports.

Supporting an ideology is one thing. Being a decent human being is another. Oskar Schindler was a genuine Nazi. Before WW2 he served a term in a Czech prison for his Nazi activities. Yet, when it came to the Final Solution he saved many Jewish lives at the risk of his own.

Human beings are complex.

Hatred against Jews for centuries has been promoted by the charge of genocide. All Jews are assumed to be guilty for what some Jews have supposedly done. "Love thy neighbour as thy self" is found in both the Jewish and Catholic Bibles. There is nothing like it in the Nazi or neo-Nazi ideology.

@david f

>> "A person is not my enemy because of the ideology he supports."

Hmm. So hypothetically, you would not consider your "enemy" a person whose goals, ideas and actions necessitate grievous harm to people named "David" and your families, even indirectly? Is that right?

That's an interesting notion, and one that I'm having trouble either understanding or believing.

>> "Hatred against Jews for centuries has been promoted by the charge of genocide. All Jews are assumed to be guilty for what some Jews have supposedly done. "Love thy neighbour as thy self" is found in both the Jewish and Catholic Bibles. There is nothing like it in the Nazi or neo-Nazi ideology."

I don't quite understand your point. I hope you don't think I was likening Catholics to Nazis!! Isn't there a law about doing that or something?

My rebuttal to your flawed analogy (imo) was _only_ constructed to demonstrate that deliberately choosing to identify with an ideological group (Nazis, Catholics, whatever) provides rather more of a hint about your ideology than does what country you live in.

But thanks anyway for taking pains to explain the difference between Catholics and Nazis for me!

@Alan Austin

>> "What if someone was a member of the Catholic Church and had identified certain aspects of the theology and praxis which warranted reform - or abandonment - and were working internally towards that?

Would you still regard them as enemies, Jimmy?"

Got me there, I suppose. But ...

@Tony Lavis
>> "I think you'd pleasantly surprised to hear what some of the priests I've met think about Pell and his ultra-conservative crap."

Well if I'd be "surprised to hear" it, then it's hardly my fault for misjudging them is it? Where are these people? Why are they still writing "Catholic" on the census and supporting the status quo?

And,

>> "These are people not sheep"

Maybe not as you suggest in thinking their boss is full of "crap", but anyone who swallows this popular fiction called Catholicism to fulfill whatever need they have is really just following blindly.

Dear Jimmy Jones,

You wrote: ">> "A person is not my enemy because of the ideology he supports."

Hmm. So hypothetically, you would not consider your "enemy" a person whose goals, ideas and actions necessitate grievous harm to people named "David" and your families, even indirectly? Is that right?"

I believe I made the point that supporting an ideology does not mean one's actions are necessarily determined by the ideology. I gave the example of Schindler who was a Nazi ideologue but when it came to the actual working out of the Final Solution opposed it. He had an ideology, but his humanity overrode the ideology.

After World War 2 there were trials of the Nazis at Nuremberg. Being a Nazi and supporting the ideology was not enough to convict a person of anything. They actually had to commit a crime.

I explained the difference between Catholicism and Nazism to you because you made an analogy between them so you apparently needed to have the difference pointed out. You justified your condemnation of Catholics as a group by making an analogy to condemning neo-Nazis as a group. Glad you appreciated my explanation.

Being a Catholic does not mean willingness to participate in an Inquisition or endorse all actions of the church. I am a dual citizen of the US and Australia. I was born in the US, but I voluntarily became an Australian citizen. I disapprove of many of the actions of both countries, but I do not plan to give up either citizenship. I think many Catholics are in exactly the same position.

>>Well if I'd be "surprised to hear" it, then it's hardly my fault for misjudging them is it?<<

I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that you are misjudging people.

>>Where are these people?<<

I dunno - but I can tell you exactly what their momentum is.

>>Why are they still writing "Catholic" on the census and supporting the status quo?<<

Because they identify as Catholics. As for your second question: who knows? I never much liked Status Quo and ever since they did this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdV4pr4frd4

I have wanted to bludgeon them to death with a brick.

>>anyone who swallows this popular fiction called Catholicism to fulfill whatever need they have is really just following blindly.<<

Yes: but they're not alone. People believe all sorts of crap for reasons that have nothing to do with reason. I'd have to rate most Catholics a good deal saner than people who use homeopathic 'medicine' for example.

Cheers,

Tony

Curse you, Tony Lavis, for posting that Status Quo link ..!

Will I ever get it out of my head now?

Oh well, at least it puts into perspective the evils of the Catholics and the Nazis ...

"For every Christian leader who opposes gay marriage there are many more who support it."

If this is true, then, really, mainstream Christianity is finished. Done. Kaput.

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13, King James Bible)

Now, I was under the impression that Christianity was based on the teachings of the Bible, and that Christians were obliged to follow and uphold those teachings.

Now we're being told that "for every Christian leader who opposes gay marriage there are many more who support it."

My question to those "Christian" leaders who support gay marriage: why bother with Christianity at all? It's clear that you no longer follow scripture. In fact, you are directly contravening it. So, why bother with the rest of the Christian act?

And here lies the problem with modern mainstream Christianity: it stands for nothing. It is a weak religion that has caved in time and time again on nearly every major moral issue of the day. Christian leaders have shown themselves to be unprincipled and gutless. No wonder nobody takes it seriously any more. No wonder more confident religions such as Islam are replacing it.

Hello Drab.

Re: “I was under the impression that Christianity was based on the teachings of the Bible, and that Christians were obliged to follow and uphold those teachings.”

Most certainly. But it is a question here of what the Bible actually teaches.

The passage you quote deals with ritual prostitution in worship of the heathen god Molech - not with faithful, committed same-sex unions.

Leviticus 20 mentions Molech four times in the first five verses. So it pretty clear what the writer is discussing. Ritual homosexual acts are definitely prohibited.

If all same-sex unions were condemned, as some claim, the text would refer to other homoerotic acts. And would include women. They would also be proscribed elsewhere. They are not – ONLY in the two Molech passages in Leviticus 18 and 20. Nowhere else are same-sex acts mentioned. Not in the 10 Commandments in Exodus, not in the 11 commandments in Deuteronomy 27, nor in any other list of abominations, prohibited acts or instructions for the People of Israel regarding sexual matters.

Nowhere in the Prophets is there any teaching against same-sex activities at all. And in fact nowhere else in the Old Testament, except the attempted gang rape at Sodom (also prohibited).

Reference to the death penalty in Leviticus 20 confirms this is not a sexual issue but one of Satanic idolatry.

Scholars who seek to square the Leviticus texts with all the other Biblical revelation are increasingly finding this the most satisfactory exegesis. It is consistent with what scholars understand about ritual worship practices by the Phoenicians and Canaanites from sources outside Scripture.

It is consistent with everything else we now know about same-sex orientation and relationships.

So these two passages (Lev 18:22 and 20:13) condemn prostitution in Satanic worship. Not other activity. If you wanted to paint with a broad brush, you could say they condemn all same-sex prostitution and all sexual activity in Satanic worship.

So really, Drab, it is those who are now welcoming people in same-sex unions into their churches and synagogues who are being most faithful to Scripture.

Dear Drab,

The Bible is quite clear on the prohibition against eating the flesh of animals who do not have a cloven hoof and chew their cud. If Christianity were kaput because it accepts same-sex marriage it should also be kaput because it accepts the eating of unclean animals such as pigs.

Christians accept what they want to accept in the Bible. Why should eating the flesh of unclean animals be acceptable and same-sex marriage not acceptable? However, there is one tremendous differencebetween the prohibition against eating unclean animals and same-sex marriage. Christians do not try to control other people's diets. Why should they try to control who other people marry? Legal marriage is under civil, not religious law. Why are Christians trying to impose their religious ideas on other people on the basis of the Bible when they don't even observe the Bible?

As the Pope said recently, for progressive/feminists types, it's better they were honest with their unbelief and left the Church rather than try
to rewrite the Bible...they should 'let it go' and do their own thing.

What does the Bible teach about marriage? "Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together." (Matthew 19:4-6 CEV) Our concept of marriage in this Society is based on the natural, created order as taught by Jesus and his followers.

What does the Bible actually teach about homosexuality? The Apostle Paul taught that "...God let these people go their own way. They did what they wanted to do, and their filthy thoughts made them do shameful things with their bodies. They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshiped God’s creation instead of God, who will be praised forever. Amen. God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds." (Romans 1:24-27 CEV). The Bible teaches clearly that homosexuality is a sin against God's good, natural, created order, it couldn't be plainer.

The state currently recognises the biologically and ethically sensible view that marriage is the union of a male and a female, which is the natural relationship for the bearing and nurturing of offspring. In this Society people have freedom to choose to perform homosexual acts with consenting adults, and God lets people go their own way on this (see the Romans passage above). You may have taken a different route to the Biblical one on marriage and sexuality but please don't twist the Scriptures to support your views.

Hello Mykah,

You have raised pretty much the central question for Christian and Jews: what does the Bible actually teach? There is a range of opinions, isn't there? They cannot all be correct.

Increasingly, Mykah, Biblical scholars, pastors and teachers are coming to understand that it is those who want to condemn faithful same-sex partnerships who are twisting Scriptures to support their views.

The passage from Matthew you have quoted is dealing with divorce. Not with the gender or number or spouses in marriage. We find these matters dealt with elsewhere.

Jesus refers to LGBTI matters a little later in the same chapter, at verses 10 to 12.

Romans 1:26-27 relates to naturally straight men having unnatural gay sex for thrills with other men or with young boys - outside their marriage. This happens frequently today, as it did in ancient Rome. Think Ted Haggard and George Rekers. It is clear from the terminology this is what Paul is addressing: “They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men.”

So he is talking about heterosexual men – those whose natural sexual relations are with women. He is not talking about gay men – or lesbian women – whose natural, God-given orientation is same-sex.

All the other passages in Scripture that relate to same-sex behaviour similarly deal with abusive, destructive, coercive or idolatrous acts – not loving, committed, faithful unions.

Nowhere does the Bible require marriage to be one-man-one-woman, Mykah. Yes, it describes Adam and Eve as a monogamous couple. There are a few others as well. But there plenty of instances in Scripture of approved polygamous marriages and same-sex unions.

On marriage, some further discussion here:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13758

And some discussion of same-sex unions in the Bible here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4143802.html

Hope these help. Responses most welcome.

Cheers, AA

Dear Mykah,

You don't seem to get the idea. Nobody is telling churches who they should marry. The churches can voice their opinion, but they have no business at all deciding what the civil law regards as marriage.

We don't follow the Bible when it comes to cattle breeding, farming or textile manufacture. The following biblical passage has something to say on that. Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Thed Bible is no more relevant to civil marriage or sex in general than it is to cattle breeding, farming or textile manufacture.

>>You may have taken a different route to the Biblical one on marriage and sexuality but please don't twist the Scriptures to support your views.<<

Why not? Everybody else is doing it. The bible is a big book and there isn't one clear cut way to interpret it that is right and all the other ways wrong. Pastor Brian Houston, author of 'You Need More Money: Discovering God's Amazing Financial Plan for Your Life' is clearly not getting the same message from his bible as a mendicant friar. For two men to arrive at such different interpretations of the same book can only mean one of two things: either all the bibles in the world are magical books which change their text depending on who is reading them or people will see what they want to see in the bible and ignore the rest. The end result is much the same so I like to go with the 'magic book' theory: it's more exciting.

Cheers,

Tony