186 2 mins 9 yrs

Think we will see more and more of this as the Church abandons eternity and embraces modernity.

The minister of an Aberdeen church and its members have become the latest to leave the Church of Scotland in protest at the Kirk allowing the appointment of gay ministers.  Gilcomston South’s minister Reverend Dominic Smart and its membership of more than 300 have been discussing the issue for some time. The Church of Scotland said it was sorry and saddened by the decision.

The congregation took issue with the General Assembly approving the appointment of the openly gay minister Scott Rennie to Queen’s Cross church in Aberdeen in 2009. Revered Smart said: “Our decision to leave was the culmination of careful study, sincere discussion and prayer over the past four years. “We have weighed up many different options and believe the decision we have reached has the most integrity. “We are looking forward to the first chapter in the life of our new generation”

Undoubtedly this is the right thing to do. The gayification of the modern Church is an inevitable consequence of its failure to appreciate that following latter day opinion polls are no basis for the tenets of Biblical faith.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

186 thoughts on “LEAVING THE WHITED SEPULCHRES

  1. It may have (wilfully) escaped the notice of the soft and huggable liberatii, but as far as I am aware not ONE Muslim has protested against the anti homosexual teachings of Islam.
    When will we see a demo by Stonewall and its cohorts outside some mosque, protesting against their “bigoted and backwards” stance on homosexuality and gay marriage.
    I think that should be far more a cause for concern amongst those seeking marital equality than the good old clueless Church of England! I applaud these folk in the Church of Scotland. It’s the only way to go.
    I haven’t raised the issue yet in our local parish church, but I will. Our minister is a true Christian (i.e. he actually believes the Bible and salvation through Christ), but were he to be forced to agree to gay marriages in his church, we would leave and join other Christians who are not homophobic but believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

  2. Mahons,
    It will come. Why do you think that during the parliamentary debate, much was made of the fact that all five members of the Unitarian Church and two or three dozen Quakers were in favour of gay marriage and would be happy to perform the ceremony in their cupboards churches.
    If the Lords agree to gay marriage it will only be a matter of time before a case is brought before the Court of Enlightened Catholic Lawyers and Human Rights to DEMAND that a “church of choice” performs the ceremony.
    You didn’t comment on my reference to the Islamic stance on the issue.
    How many gay Imams are there in your area Mahons??

  3. Agit8ed – No, it won’t. There is no one forcing divorce to be accepted by Churches that are against it.

    I don’t comment on your Islamic comment because it is a diversion. But if you wish to align yourself with mainstream Muslim practices that is your choice. There are in fact Muslims who are gay and who have spoken out against those who would demonize them in their faith.

  4. A least Muslims believe in something. The Anglicans believe in nothing.

    Our decision to leave was the culmination of careful study, sincere discussion and prayer over the past four years

    Ya, them must have been some prayers.

  5. Mahons,
    there are approaching two million Muslims mainly living in their own communities up and down the UK.
    So it is not a diversion.
    As far as I am aware Muslim organisations usually make it clear that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, and I would imagine the life expectancy of a gay Imam who “came out” would be measured in days rather than months.
    If anything Muslims are far more robust in the defence of their faith than Christians, and the more devout have made it quite clear how they feel about homosexuals.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7428933/Muslim-gangs-imposing-sharia-law-in-British-prisons.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570506/Police-covered-up-violent-campaign-to-turn-London-area-Islamic.html

    It might be admirable to be of a liberal and “above all that” disposition, but in the real world the opinion of the man willing to cut your head off to defend the honour (and truth) of his faith will always carry more weight than the reasoned argument of the liberal and enlightened.
    That’s why the IRA found violence more effective than textbooks.

  6. Agit8ed – It is a diversion, not that you would recognize it as such. You can’t decide whether to protest against Gays or Muslims and are thus caught up in a rambling comment which is meaningless. You are confused. You make no sense.

    The topic is a break away Church in Scotland who don’t want to have gay marriage as part of their religion. No one seems to be stopping them from breaking away. No one is compelling them to perform gay marriages.

    As for Muslims, if you wish to change the topic, it is well known that there is a stronger intolerance of homosexuals than in other faiths, and the degree of that intolerance shifts dramatically (from shunning to death sentences) depending where one is. The vast majority aren’t cutting off people’s heads, as you well know. And there are gay Muslims wand liberal Muslims who would like to change the way things are, and they face much stronger opposition from within their own faith.

  7. I read somewhere this week that apparently all the Muslim MPs in the House of Commons voted in favour of the Gay marriage bill !

    PS – These people are breaking away not over the issue of gay marriage, but because they don’t want to work with ministers who are open and honest about being gay. It seems they would prefer the dishonest closeted ones.

  8. “The minister of an Aberdeen church and its members have become the latest to leave the Church of Scotland in protest at the Kirk allowing the appointment of gay ministers.”

    Mahons it is about gay clergy, but the two are inextricably linked.

  9. ps
    I don’t protest against gays. I protest against the idea of gay clergy who insist on leading a gay lifestyle.
    I don’t protest against Muslims, I simply highlight their beliefs regarding homosexuality

  10. look I could care less about gays one way or another. I support civil unions with all the same rights as a hetero couple. You can’t however call it a marriage because a marriage is a religious union. That being said.

    The gay lesbian transgender alphabet soup groups are a problem. Not because who or what they want to have sex or a relationship with, I could care less. What matters is this groups NEED to force their view on others.

    A cake maker recently lost his bakery because he refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Now rather than say well excuse me and fuck off to to the baker and go to 100 other bakeries that would have no problem making the cake, they brought the government in and had his bakery shut down on grounds of discrimination.

    Just this weekend a banquet club turned down the reservations for a fundraiser for LGBT group. So what did the group do contact the news file suit and are planing a protest outside his business in two weeks.

    When interviewed the club owner stated it plainly. “I told them I wouldn’t host their event because I don’t support their cause, Just like I won’t host a KKK event because I don’t support their cause.”

    Well that really pissed them off being compared to the KKK. Their spokesperson said “That is offensive, we are all about love and harmony. This man should be put out of business.”

    Look discrimination on any grounds is wrong. People however have the right to not accept your views. Whether those views involve homosexuality or race superiority. You have the right to believe what you want, you don’t have the right to force others to accept that point of view.

    The gays refuse to accept that not everyone agrees with them and have chosen a combative stance that is backed by fear by politicians.

    Live your life, be happy, but accept that people have the right to disagree with you.

  11. Thanks Pete.

    I love it when someone starts a comment with “I don’t care less about gays etc. because you know the rest of the comment will prove the opposite !

  12. Colm,’ mahons

    Do you think that those who choose not to host gay events, to take part in gay ” weddings ” etc should be exposed to criminal prosecution of any kind? Should they be exposed to liability lawsuits?

  13. To be more specific

    Should they be exposed to fines from governmental bodies, criminal prosecution, or to liability lawsuits?

  14. Phantom

    No religous organisation or individuals are forced to host or take part in gay marriage ceremonies nor should they be – but if the law states that discrimination against people on grounds of sexual orientation, just as they do with sex religion or race is banned by those offering and advertising public services in the secular sphere then people should either obey the law, campaign to have or changed or refuse to obey the law and accept the penalties.

  15. So you do think that they should be exposed to fines from governmental bodies, criminal prosecution, or to ruinous liability lawsuits!

    A “yes” would have answered it!

  16. Phantom

    There is a logical argument to saying that there should be no anti-discrimination laws at all and that any business should be entirely free to say No blacks No Jews No gays etc. and openly advertise thus, but a lot of people who are opposed to gays being protected by anti-discrimination laws aren’t so keen on also turning back the laws on race or gender discrimination. There is a lot of hypocrisy and hierarchical attitudes surrounding this issue.

  17. Phantom

    Do you agree with the laws that ended racial segregation in places like stores cafeterias in the US ?

  18. “Do you think that those who choose not to host gay events, to take part in gay ” weddings ” etc should be exposed to criminal prosecution of any kind? Should they be exposed to liability lawsuits?”
    This is where it gets difficult.
    To return to my ramblings re the Muslims: would any gay group boycott a Muslim catering company because they refused to do a gay party or celebration, and take them to the courts?
    Colm? Mahons?

  19. Race and gender are innate.

    I don’t buy that being gay is nearly as innate. Its behavior.

    What is spoken of here is not the allowing of any guests into a club or not.

    Its not that at all.

  20. Anti racial segregation laws are correct

    And they absolutely do not apply here

    Ive never heard of any restaurant or other place refuse entry to any gay patron

    Have you?

    What is spoken of here is wrong behavior – only

  21. Anti racial segregation laws are correct

    And they absolutely do not apply here

    Ive never heard of any restaurant or other place refuse entry to any gay patron

    Have you?

    What is spoken of here is wrong behavior – only

  22. Phantom

    The issue of whether somebody’s identity is innate or not should be irrelevent. By your logic a black man should not be discriminated against by a racist restaurant for example because he couldn’t choose his race but his white wife could be turned away legally because she ‘chose’ to marry a black man. You are falling for the ‘some groups deserve legal protections others don’t’ view. I have more respect for the attitudes of people like Pete Moore who thinks there should be no anti-discrimination laws at all than I do for that.

  23. Phantom – There is a website called A Tangled Web. If you visit it you will learn of places that have refused gay patrons (one of David’s favorites is a B & B in the UK).

    Behavior? I presume heterosexuals are all well behaved.

    This is discrimination in which people are trying to use religious arguments in support of it. Theocracy is not for me.

    People used to try to use religion to argue against equal rights for blacks and women as well. This is no different, but it targets a smaller minority.

    To answer your question any business venue should be required to abide by the laws of the land. Religious organizations have long had sensible exemptions that are consistent with religious tolerance. Which is why no one has compelled the Catholic Church to have women priests, or perform marriages for divorced people for instance.

    If organizations such as the Catholic Church had tended to real problems (deviant pedophiles and criminal conspiracy to cover up same, not profiting from Irish Magadaline laundries etc) instead of imagined ones there might be a few more people attending Church and the world would be a better place.

  24. I’m pretty sure refusing to serve gays is fairly common….and yes, it happens in certain places in NY too http://www.blogher.com/dining-while-gay-some-restaurants-may-legally-refuse-service
    That’s just from a quick google.
    I have to run but I think whether gayness is innate is the crux of the problem, Colm….if people believe it’s mere behavior than it’s easy for folks to say they won’t accept it in certain circumstances. If you believe ‘the science’, it’s more difficult to say ‘not in my restaurant’.

  25. I’m pretty sure refusing to serve gays is fairly common….and yes, it happens in certain places in NY too http://www.blogher.com/dining-while-gay-some-restaurants-may-legally-refuse-service
    That’s just from a quick google.
    I have to run but I think whether gayness is innate is the crux of the problem, Colm….if people believe it’s mere behavior than it’s easy for folks to say they won’t accept it in certain circumstances. If you believe ‘the science’, it’s more difficult to say ‘not in my restaurant’.

  26. The idea that it’s wrong to discriminate is absurd as it’s inherent to human nature and survival. We discriminate daily between right and wrong, good and bad, likes and dislikes etc. so saying that I shouldn’t discriminate between people for whom I have affinity and those for whom I have none is just nonsensical. And these people in the Church of Scotland have merely discriminated between what is in the Bible and what is not, and they are right to do so. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Christian Scripture which supports the concept of homosexual clergy. If someone can find it, please post it. Additionally, are there any homosexual rabbis or imams because, if not, then the agenda of an assault on Christianity as declared by judeo-marxism is clear.

  27. Allan

    There is no such thing as Judaeo-Marxism.

    mairin

    We are not talking about people having sex in a restaurant, just about people being entitled to be served providing they behave according to the same rules as everyone else while in the restaurant. Who they sleep with at home far away from the restaurant is irrelevant.

  28. Allan

    Human nature has many “inherent” traits which are countered by laws. Examples include violence, murder, genocide, rape and theft. And slavery, which continues to exist. The rule of law is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

  29. “People used to try to use religion to argue against equal rights for blacks and women as well. This is no different, but it targets a smaller minority.”
    Very true Mahons, but there was no biblical/theological justification for it, other than as Awful Allan mentions the totally human characteristic of discriminating.
    Also it was the influence of Evangelical Christianity which brought slavery to an end.

    As regards gay clergy, gay marriage the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is against God’s law. No ifs or buts, it is. Even divorce is only allowed because of the hardness of men’s hearts.
    So divorcees like us for example have only had a registry marriage because the Church doesn’t marry divorcees.
    Do we kick up a stink about it?
    Demand that the Church get with modern thought or exercise Christian Luuuurve?
    No.
    I am accepting of Gay people as people equal to me. But I don’t like the lifestyle, I don’t like it being forced upon society,I don’t accept the idea of unrepentant gay clergy, and I cannot see how the universal, historical, trans religious understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman can be stretched to include homosexuals.
    Otherwise where does it all end? If everything must be sacrificed upon the altar of equality and inclusion, then there can be no absolute morality. Only a mushy, meaningless acceptance of everything.
    I would have thought that you as a lawyer would understand that. No matter how enlightened you are.
    And if this acceptance means being non judgemental, then logically that must go across the board, so that ALL faiths in opposition to homosexuality should be condemned. Not just Christians, because even in warn and fluffy world that must count as discrimination.

  30. The B&B in question did not discriminate against any individual.

    If one of the persons sought a room he would presumably have been given one. The proprietor did not rent a room to two or more out of a presumption that wrong behavior take place under his roof.

    He should have that right.

  31. Then we’re talking about the same thing, Colm.
    Phantom’s post above your’s says he never heard of gays not being served….That part of my comment was in reference to his post.
    If one views sexuality only as behavior than it is easy to condemn it.

  32. I’ve still not heard examples of gays not served in restaurants or halls. It is impossible to think of it.

    Refusing to act as the host for a gay wedding is not the same as saying that gays or others are nor allowed in.

  33. Agit8ed – Nonsense. First off don’t quote the Bible as your justification if you don’t follow everything in it literally. Want some examples of where you (and society) don’t follow it to the letter? Second, you aren’t being asked to accept homosexuality or participate in a gay marriage. You are entitled to your beliefs.

    Phantom – It discriminated against a gay couple. If they had discriminated against an interracial couple or Jewish couple it would be exactly the same thing.

    By the way, what wrong behavior? Sex between consenting adults? Seriously? In a bedroom? How end of the world.

  34. Phantom

    And what about a B&B owner objecting to the potential ‘wrongfull’ sexual behaviour of a mixed race married heterosexual couple ?

  35. Phantom – what is the point you are trying to make over gays not being served in restaurants or halls? That they should be able to not serve them?

  36. No

    Gays should always be allowed to br served in any restaurant

    But the owner should have every right in the world not to host a gay “wedding ” or other event like that – just as a DJ or photographer should not be forced to aid and abet an event like that against his will.

  37. Freedom to be served is not the same as compulsory participation in a type of event that you see as wrong

  38. Phantom

    Where did the anti Anglican comments come from and what have they to do with this thread?

    Re thread :-
    These clergy have voted with their feet. It’s their call. If something you belong to changes so that you don’t want to continue to belong then leave. No big deal.

  39. “Agit8ed – Nonsense. First off don’t quote the Bible as your justification if you don’t follow everything in it literally.”
    I wouldn’t go into it with you Mahons because you continue to confuse New Testament Christianity with Old Testament Jewish law.

    Which for someone who makes his living from interpreting the law is kind of odd.
    I gave you an example from my own life where my wife and I accept our situation as divorcees. We don’t bitch about it or demand the Church change its teaching to suit us.
    But as usual, you major on the perceived injustices and demand changes to suit your liberal views.
    If you knew anything about the New Testament, you would know that there were areas of disagreement and interpretation even in the early church. Christians can argue over or struggle with various points of practice or theology, but if their faith is in Jesus Christ they put those things on the back burner and exercise their faith that all will be worked out. That is why Christianity has adapted and innovated and continues to change lives without abandoning or distorting its core beliefs to please the world.

  40. Agit8ed – In other words you don’t follow everything in the Bible (God help anyone who did by the way) but insist that others follow those sections that you latch onto.

  41. Exactly – Who decides at any given time in history what the ‘core’ beliefs are. Attitudes to homosexuality are already different than they were 50 or a 100 years ago as people, including people of faith adopt a more intelligent and humane attitude towards individuals and their sexuality and realising that what matters is how people behave towards others and how they conduct their relationships not purely the technical matter of the gender of their partners. It is not an abandoning of ‘core’ beliefs just properly adjusting attitudes with greater knowledge and experience.

  42. Aileen

    I had thought that the Church of Scotland was part of the Anglican Communion, as the Church of Ireland indeed is. I now learn that it is not, that it is a Presbyterian church. My bad.

  43. “Race and gender are innate.”

    So what? If someone could choose to be black or a woman should they be discriminated against then?

    “I don’t buy that being gay is nearly as innate. Its behavior.”

    Those homosexual creatures in the animal kingdom are just doing it to be cool.

    “Freedom to be served is not the same as compulsory participation in a type of event that you see as wrong”

    Tell us who is forcing you to become a minister and officiate at weddings and we’ll ask them to stop.

    “Gays should always be allowed to br served in any restaurant”

    As long as they don’t engage in ‘wrong behaviour’ while eating – such as for example holding hands, kissing, or (heaven forbid) getting down on one knee and proposing. Right?

  44. Allan

    There is no such thing as Judaeo-Marxism.

    Colm – I think you would find that there is:

    http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/judaism-gave-birth-to-marxism.html

    – It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews. The Jews should realize that Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth; we must no longer look up to Jehovah as above us and outside of us, but we must see him right within us.

    Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth. Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews,”

    Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race. –

    “Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism.” – Rabbi S. Wise
    The American Bulletin, May 5, 1935

    “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”
    Jewish Chronicle, London April, 4, 1919

  45. I’m with Frank. If you believe that homosexuality is biological and not behavior then there should be no refusal of service no matter the business. In every species, there is homosexualty. Man is not alone. If you believe a behavioral component outweighs the biology than discrimination gives way.

  46. The world has turned on this issue, it’s inevitable that gay folks will eventually be treated as no different from straight folks in every avenue of life.

    I thinks it’s important that evolving civil mores not inflict their secular values on religious institutions, but I also believe it’s equally important that religious entities aren’t allowed to impose their particular beliefs on the larger civil society.

    To be honest, I don’t understand why this is such a touchy issue among educated people. Treat all people equally in civil law, let religion remain a private matter between man and he church of his choice.

  47. It us a shame that he legal social and religious stuff get all caught up in this way.

    I still maintain that “gay marriage” is like “chicken shepards pie” – not possible. If it is chicken and not lamb then it isn’t shepards pie. It should be afforded the same legal status and benifits as a shepards pie and is as vald and worthy as a shepards pie but it sn’t a shepards pie.

    I think that “civil partnerships” should be open two any two adults without any assumption of a “romantic” relationship, ie should be open to siblings or just two pals who share a house or business etc.

  48. “Agit8ed – In other words you don’t follow everything in the Bible (God help anyone who did by the way) but insist that others follow those sections that you latch onto.”

    As I said, many fail to make the distinction between Judaism (Old Testament) and Christianity (New Testament, written by and about Jews and One Jew in particular).
    This ignorance gives rise to stoopid jokes by supercilious people about not coveting your neighbour’s ass or servant.
    It tends to be the case in churches where the priests tell you what to believe. (Whereas most Christians follow Martin Luther’s example and consult the Manual.)

  49. “- It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews. The Jews should realize that Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth; we must no longer look up to Jehovah as above us and outside of us, but we must see him right within us.”

    Allan,
    You are potty. Marxism is almost the antithesis of Judaism. Some Jews latching onto Marxism simply proves that man has free will and may choose not to believe in religion.
    Nothing more, nothing less. You do realise that by continuing to insist that the Jews are behind everything, you end up saying that they are more intelligent, more devious and superior to us Goys??

  50. Agit8ed – Try to at least make sense. Your 1:55 is free association nonsense.

    Aileen – If you view gay people as a different species your pie analogy would almost make sense.

  51. Mahon

    For my comment to make sence I/one only needs to consider a gay couple as being different than a couple made up of a man and women. Which if course it is in that very specific regard. How ON EARTH does being a different species come into it?

    I consider marriage by definition to be restructed to a union between a man and a woman. This is not a moral or religion opinion but one on language. On that basis, a gay marriage is as much an impossibility as a chicken shepards pie. A union between two people of the same sex that is between two people of mutually opposite sex.

  52. ….. and apart from it not needing to be based on the ridiculous notion that gays are a different species, it also doesn’t require a belief in the notion that gays or gay relationships are lesser in some way.

  53. Aileen – So it is semantics then. A marriage can also be defined as a union between two people. And gay marriage is now legal in many places, and therefore not only possible, but actual.

  54. “Agit8ed – Try to at least make sense. Your 1:55 is free association nonsense. ”

    What part doesn’t make sense Mahons?
    Your continuing to see yourself as a Catholic, or my assertion that Judaism is distinct from Christianity?

  55. Mahons

    Yes it is semantic! Again I ask again how ON EARTH does being a different species be a necessity for my comment to “almost make sence”? Or is that another comment of yours that just appears sarky because it mistranslates accross the water?

    You are entitled to your opinion as to what the definition can be but I don’t have to share it. Legal definitions are just that legal definitions. They hold sway for totally legal concepts but not everything is. I don’t know of any Englsh speaking countries have “gay marriage”. (not saying there aren’t – gay unions are not my specialist subject). For non English countries, the word they have for the union may well not have a definition that precludes the possibility.

  56. No culture in earth’s history has entertained gay marriage as a major tenet of their beliefs. Yes there has always been a recognition of gay love or man/boy love, but it is heterosexual marriage that provides the offspring which ensures the continuity of the culture.

    “Not every married couple has or wants children. But at its core marriage has always had something to do with societies’ recognition of the fundamental importance of the sexual ecology of human life: humanity is male and female, men and women often have sex, babies often result, and those babies, on average, do better when their mother and father cooperate in their care. Conjugal marriage attempts to sustain enduring bonds between women and men in order to give a baby its mother and father, to bond them to one another and to the child they have created. If human beings did not reproduce sexually, creating human infants with their long period of dependency and need, marriage would not be the virtually universal human social institution that it is.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/02/04/3682721.htm

  57. These arguments, like those involving abortion, never change any minds.

    A few like Colm actually listen, but they are few.

    Waste of bandwidth, bro.

    You’re a ” bigot “, and you’re ” close minded “, you need to ” get with the times ” doncha know.

  58. If that be true Phantom, what has brought the human race thus far?
    I have never ever insulted Colm for being a gay man, nor before him, Jaz.
    It’s always wrong to attack someone for what they are as physical beings. It is what they do that is open to approval or disapproval.
    I am not against gay marriage because gays want to do it. I am against it because I fear its effects on the family and the destabilisation of society. Like my wife and I in a civil marriage outside of the Church, what is wrong with a civil partnership?

  59. Agit@2.01 – the fact is that bolshevism was created by jews, financed by jews, imposed on Russia by jews including the mass starvations in Ukraine, and jews have admitted it as I attached at 12.42am as seen from Jewish source material.

    As for jews being more devious, that’s true. As for being superior, well, they are ‘Chosen’ so they would inevitably consider themselves to be superior. As for more intelligent, there are tens of millions of whites more intelligent than they are if the fabled average IQ of 115 for them is to be believed. However, Israel has an average IQ of 94 so the weighted average for the Ashkenazim is some way short of the 115. Btw, here’s who they are, and most of them have no claim whatsoever on the lands of palestine – unless some smart jew is going to claim that the Caucasus are part of the Holy Land:

    http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-jewish-people-s-ultimate-treasure-hunt.premium-1.490539

    The bottom line, he claims, is that the “genome of European Jews is a mosaic of ancient peoples and its origin is largely Khazar.”

  60. “well, they are ‘Chosen’”

    Chosen for being ordinary not special.

    Some European Jews will have connections with the Goy culture around them, as a result of intermarriage (but not Gay) and conversion. So?
    That didn’t stop them being herded into the gas chambers Allan.
    You are really unhealthily and perversely obsessed with this, and it will be your downfall.

  61. Agit8ed – What is the impact of two gay people being married upon you? How will it effect your family?

  62. Mahons,
    That is not the issue and you know it. Stop moving the goal posts and answer the objections as I see and state them, not how you think I should see them.
    Just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean you have to be right all the time. It’s okay to say,
    “Well it’s a matter of opinion, and I think you’re wrong. End of.”

    I’ve already given my objections from a Christian pov, and a sociological pov and a historical pov.
    And may I say Mahons, that frequently you adopt a faintly patronising or scornful attitude without actually addressing sincerely held objections. You ignore them and try another tack.
    In fact you are the one of the guys who frequently displays a certain intellectual snobbery on this blog, because you always think you are right or should be right.

  63. What would be the impact on us if a horse were declared to be a US Senator?

    Does this mean that we’d be obligated to support the move?

  64. If I understand you Phantom, a horse being declared to be a senator would change our perception of
    a) how truth is arrived at. i.e. is truth a reasoned process arriving at a conclusion that is demonstrably true.
    Or is it imposed on us by fiat? Whether by one man, a committee or a totalitarian regime, eg as in 1984.

    In my view and depending on whether or not I understand your comment;
    if something is imposed on a society, it might not impact directly upon you personally, but if left unchecked that process will eventually rob you and your children of freedom of thought and practice.
    So all through history men and women have stood up for what they believed to be the truth, even though “the lie” does not directly and immediately impact on their lives.
    Witness the Catholic and Protestant martyrs, scientists, statesmen and even politicians, whistleblowers etc.

  65. Caligula appointed a horse to the Roman senate.

    The horse’s name was Incitatus.

    I think that Incitiatus would represent me as well as Senator Schumer does, and thats the idea of horses as senators makes as much sense as some other things floating around today!

  66. “Caligula appointed a horse to the Roman senate.

    The horse’s name was Incitatus.”

    I knew that!
    I can’t comment on Senator Schumer..

  67. Phantom – It might be an improvement in the Senate. Although you don’t intend it, your question appears that gay people are as different to heterosexual people as horse are to humans.

    Agit8ed – You’ve explained your objections from your understanding of the Christian point of view, which is not necessarily the same thing as the Christian point of view. You’ve managed to refer to my profession at least three times, which is irrelevant to the debate. I’ve addressed your comments, you just don’t like the responses. As for opinions, everyone is entitled to have them, I never indicated otherwise.

  68. Frankly, a complete horse in the Senate would be an improvement as we often are merely represented by a horse’s ass.

  69. Yes, in America they can become television stars like Mr. Ed. In Ireland they can become dinner.

  70. “the Jews readily took up”

    “Judaism and the Jews.”

    “The Jews should realize”

    “the Jews are the highest”

    “the Jews have a right”

    “destiny of the Jews”

    “the Jews will conquer the world”

    This is gone beyond a joke. Time was when David and Troll used to mock anyone who criticised Israel by pretending they blamed everything on “the Joos”. Now Allan gives us a whole thread of this crap – the above examples are all from one single comment – and neither David or Troll says a word.

  71. “Agit8ed – You’ve explained your objections from your understanding of the Christian point of view, which is not necessarily the same thing as the Christian point of view. ”
    I repeat.
    My Christian pov is pretty much in line with most other mainstream Christian groups down through the ages. The clue is in the title -Christian. There are Christians in all mainstream denominations, but the mushy, “we buy any line.com” is not Christianity.
    Also I pointed out views from history and sociology. You ignored them.
    Your main argument seems to be “Gays are people too!” which of course I agree with.
    But historically and cross culturally marriage is between a man and a woman.
    You seem to say, “Why should Gays be excluded from marriage?”

    I say because in my view and the views of many other people there will be unintended consequences in terms of what children will be taught, what teachers will have to teach and what pressures will be put on people to accept and adapt to the consequences.

    I am quite willing to change or modify my views if a compelling argument were presented. So far it hasn’t. It doesn’t mean I dislike Gays or wish them harm or think they are evil.

    You haven’t addressed those points.
    But don’t worry about it, I am as bored with your approach as you probably are with mine.
    For a lawyer, that’s quite a winning technique you have there.

  72. There was a funny exchange a while ago when a commenter exclaimed he couldn’t believe Allan wasn’t challenged enough and then a few posts down, the same commenter opined that he wouldn’t give Allan the time of day to challenge him because it was a waste of time. While the commenter might not have realized it…he summed up the problem quite well. There has to be a balance when to indulge Allan and when to ignore him. Sometimes he makes a good and sometimes his point in the crazy stuff. Also, in another thread, Allan was chastised for not stating his case but relying on copying and pasting and opting links…in the same thread, he was chastised for posting too many links…;-)

    I’m surprised Colm agrees with Phantom about business and gays. Separate but equal is not equal.

  73. Agit8ed – Christian thought down through the ages has evolved. But my point is quite clear, gays are entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexuals, and such rights are not dependent on some person’s version of Christianity.

    Your arguments mirror arguments made against equal rights for people who happened to be black.

    I don’t think my profession (or yours) has anything to do with the issue.

  74. Should say….sometimes he makes a good point and sometimes his point gets lost in the crazy stuff…

  75. I’ve said for quite a while that the state should have no involvement in marriage. Recognise everyone legally as civil partners. Include in that the same rights regarding tax, sucession, intestacy etc. That way if someone wishes to be married they can do so according to their religious doctrines and traditions.

    That way if at some future date the liberal elite decide it’s cool to “marry” your horse the institution will remain protected away from government hands.

  76. Chris, I was first exposed to that opinion by Irish republicans…I could not fathom why so many people were unmarried…I thought it was defiance against the state and related it to the phenomenon we see in the US in the black community…I still struggle with that opinion.

  77. Mairin, whilst being Catholic I do believe in seperation of Chruch and State and that cuts both ways. I view Marriage as a religious institution which should not be the field of the state to introduce a morally bankrupt cocktail of absurdity.

  78. mairin

    I don’t entirely agree with Phantom about business and gays. There is always a balance between individual liberty and civil protection from unfair treatment and I think we will all find ourselves on different points of that scale.

  79. Well, the dead arose and appeared to many! Nice to see you again, Chris.

    On T: If marriage is left exclusively to churches, it will go the way of so many other church traditions.

    Besides, why should the state get out of it? State-recognised marriage is obviously something that very many people have an interest in, and are in fact literally queuing up to get it. As long as there is such a demand for a state service, the state is going to provide it. If part of that demand comes from same-sex couples, then the state is obliged to provide that too. That is what states are made and paid for.
    The desire of same-sex couples to get married is probably the best proof of the social value of the institution, and I honestly can’t see why the very people who claim to want to protect marriage are trying to prevent something that only underlines its importance.

  80. Chris

    Marraige is not an invention of religous organisations, neither is it owned by them. They can of course decide their own limits of recognising what is a marraige as a sacrament, but the definition also has a secular legal meaning which is defined by the State and the authorities that make the law of the land.

  81. Chris,
    I have some sympathy for your viewpoint. I believe in the separation of Church and State, but here in the UK that would be a tremendous step to take; even though I think we should.
    On the other side of the argument, in terms of a modern progressive liberal society (built as it has been on largely Christian values) I wonder if stability and progress would continue to be sustainable, or whether we would have factions constantly in a state of tension?
    Whaddya think?

  82. Indeed Noel you too, like the good Lord I have arisen except it has taken a bit more than a few days lol

    Noel

    The state should get out of it because it’s a religious institution. The state should have no part in religion.

    “Gay Marriage” is sought by some homosexuals (as not all of them believe it appropriate) as a way of legitimising their relationship. The strongest advocates have argued that if people see them as married then society will think that being gay is “normal”. Sadly I don’t see their objectives being met even if they get what they want. Certain sections of society will still harbour homophobic views and homosexuality will continue to be viewed by a great many, rightly or wrongly, as unnatural.

  83. “The desire of same-sex couples to get married is probably the best proof of the social value of the institution, and I honestly can’t see why the very people who claim to want to protect marriage are trying to prevent something that only underlines its importance.”
    Noel I repeat our conjugal state as being that of divorcees married in a registry office not a church, yet being directly involved in a church. A civil partnership is pretty much the same thing, and again I ask you or anyone to provide evidence of current or past societies which regularly practiced same sex marriage.
    There may well be a reason for that.

  84. Agit8ed

    Earlier you said that there would be huge social consequences on the meaning and status of marraige and it’s social effects if same sex marraiges were permitted, yet when asked how it could affect the stabilty of your marraige or your life you got stroppy and annoyed at the question. I think that is because you know that same sex marraige will have NO discernable affect on heterosexual couples or anyone else other than to make same sex couples feel happier and you just don;t want to admit that.

  85. Colm

    All down through history marriage has been a deeply religious ceremony. The fact that sections of the liberal elite seek to bastardise it for their own ends is neither here nor there.

    Agi

    I’d first have to take issue with you including progressive and liberal in the same sentence 😉

    The liberal movement can’t operate a virtual pick an mix regarding religion taking this and leaving that, it’s dishonest and will not achieve their goals.

  86. Chris

    Homosexuality is the normal condition for a minority of the human population. That is not an opinion it is a fact and the legislation or otherwise of same sex marraige has no affect on that fact. It is not ‘normal’ for everyone to be homosexual , nor is it ‘normal’ for no-one to be homosexual. If you believe in God then it is logical to assume that the homosexual condition of a minority of the world’s population is part of the normality that God created.

  87. //The state should get out of it because it’s a religious institution.//

    I disagree. As Colm says, marriage doesn’t belong to any religion. It has certainly been around much longer than any Christian church.

    I propose that the state does its duty and open its – taxpayer-funded – services to all, and make no distinctions based on such absurdities as who goes to bed with whom (as if all present marriages were between people wishing to have children together or even people in love)

    The churches will then be free to define their brand of marriage as they wish, and formulate their own ceremonies and call it what they like. Some will go into a huff and call theirs the Real Marriage, while others again will call theirs the Continuity Marriage.

    Anything that increases choice is good.

  88. Colm

    I never said that homosexuality wasn’t normal, I made no statement on it but said that there are those who would hold that it isn’t normal. I’m sure those people who are homosexual consider it the most normal thing in the world.

    Noel

    I never said marriage belonged to any religion, I said it has always been a religious ceremony. I believe that marriage belongs to all the religions.

    I can’t agree with your plans for the institution of marriage but I suspect you knew that already lol

  89. Chris,
    “The liberal movement can’t operate a virtual pick an mix regarding religion taking this and leaving that, it’s dishonest and will not achieve their goals.”

    But they do! T
    here is plenty of evidence here on ATW where members of the soft and fluffy brigade try to rubbish the influence of (in our case Christianity) on the forming of our culture, and in the process forget that whether they like it or not their world view on What Ought To Be” has been shaped by those values. As you say there are viewpoints on some issues that no amount of laws will change.

    Just a small example. Having worked £hands on”with profoundly handicapped children you can’t stop people’s reactions to a badly malformed child with some genetic disorder that means they will only exist, not grow and thrive.
    But some believe that equality means sameness in form and function. As a Christian I believe men and women are equal but we have different roles and abilities.

  90. Chris

    The ceremonies may well have been religous but the intentions and reasons were more often than not deeply political in the higher echelons of society and simply romantic and practical in the lower ends – nothing to do with religion at all, it is just the power of the Churches that gave them ‘ownership’ of the institution and the ceremony.

    Liberals have bastardised nothing. In fact they have purified and made honest what marraige should always be – a celebration of human love and commitment between 2 people, gay or straight, on this earth, and only involving God if the 2 individuals CHOOSE to do so. A secular marraige in a private house between 2 people of the same sex who love each other and make their vows only to other humans is just as valid and just as great as a religous marraige between a man and woman of faith making their vows before God in a Church . It is arrogance for people of religion to claim it for themsleves. It is not about God it is about people.

  91. ps
    “The liberal movement can’t operate a virtual pick an mix regarding religion taking this and leaving that, it’s dishonest and will not achieve their goals.”

    What!
    You don’t believe that all Christianity has to do to become acceptable is to accept?
    That all we need is LUUUURVE??
    Shame on you!

  92. Agit8ed

    No it’s not all you need is love, it’s all you need is intelligence and human judgement and common sense rather than the robotic, that’s what it has always been and we don’t think for oursleves but just do what the Bible has always told us.

  93. Colm

    You can walk out tomorrow and decide that a car is going to be a tree from now on, It doesn’t make it so. Apples and Oranges are different no matter how much the liberal agenda would like to think otherwise. The whole “gay marriage” brigade are simply sycophants in the court of the Emperors’ new clothes.

    Agit8ed
    I believe Christianity, in my case Catholicism as I have never really used the “Christian” label, will die a horrible death as soon as majority of its adherents join the “all you need is love” brigade.

    There are rules to be followed, even more so when they are difficult or put you at odds with others.

  94. Colm,
    Real Christians do agonize over those things, and in England for example many of the great social reforms affecting employment and child care and yes, the abolishment of slavery, came from Christians applying their faith to their world.
    You can’t applaud some bits and reject others; no more can I.
    And still not one person comes forward with an example of any successful society which accepted and practiced same sex marriage as the norm.
    I don’t want to fight about it (well yes, I do actually!). Apart from my faith perspective I am worried about the effects and changes that may result as a consequence of accepting it.

  95. Noel @ 9.10pm – those quotations which you have cited without looking at the source are by jewish supremacists. I didn’t write them – I simply linked to them at 12.42am yesterday. If you had opened the link you would have seen the photostats of the very books and pages thereon from which those quotations are sourced directly. Now, if I had made up all that toxic text, then the proprietor of this site would have said and done something, and rightly so. Let’s just remind ourselves of the material to which you (and I) object:

    Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth. Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews.

    Judaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race.

    See the originals linked by me at 12.42am yesterday.

  96. Chris

    The selfish and inhumane Catholicism you believe in deserves to die then. Something a lot better and more deserving of humanity’s adherence should take it’s place.

    Good sensible rules, are the only ones worth following, not simply the lazy obedience to rules as they have always been. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality shouldl be technical terms only, not moral ones. Morality is how people behave , not who they are.

  97. Colm – do you believe that the Churches should be obliged to provide a holy endorsement of a gay marriage if the gay couple request it, in the interests of ‘equality’?

  98. Chris,
    “I believe Christianity, in my case Catholicism as I have never really used the “Christian” label,”

    I use the word Christian as an Evangelical. I believe there are Christians in all the denominations, but not all who attend Church are necessarily Christian.

  99. Colm

    How is my Catholicism selfish and inhumane?

    These sensible rules you are looking, who decides what is sensible and what isn’t?

    I can assure you Colm that obedience to the Catholic faith is anything but lazy, it’s downright difficult.

    I see you are yet again trying to change the meaning of accepted terms. Morality is about alot more than actions, it’s the character, intention and decisions of people.

  100. Agit8ed and Chris

    Your faith tells you that homosexuality is a sin. It is wrongfull behaviour and is to be opposed and is bad. You should not believe that just because you are told to but because as intelligent humans you understand and can reason why that is so. Let me give you an example of homosexuality and please explain to me why logically you think it is rightfull that it should be considered wrongfull and sinfull.

    A few months ago I visited a B&B in Devon owned by a gay couple in their mid seventies. They have been together for fifty years since meeting back in the days when simply being together was a criminal offence for which they could have been jailed. They have harmed no-one else on earth by being together, but have made each other happy and contented and have loved each other since the day they met.

    I bumped into one of them in a supermarket while I was staying at their B&B and while talking to him I noticed him automatically picking up things and telling me he was buying them because he knew how much his partner loved the items in question. It was a simple but wonderful gesture of continued love and affection after som many years and it BRILLIANT to witness it whether in married heterosexual couples or same-sex couples. I think seeing such love is wonderfull and benefits society and I defy you or anyone else of a religous nature to explain to me why such a relationship should be considered a sin or wrong and ‘bad in God’s eyes’.

    To me they are a MARRIED couple, whose love and commitment should be celebrated and it is damn all to do with their genders.

  101. Agit8ed

    Where I grew up the term Christian was akin to Protestant, a way of uniting all the denominations. As I’m not Protestant and as I don’t believe man is saved only by faith alone but also by good works I have never been comfortable with the catch all term.

  102. Colm

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that,

    “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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”

    That’s what my faith has taught me for 28 years and for over 2,000 years that has been the position of my Church.

    I’m not, nor will I ever present myself as a pious “holier than thou” person. I’m a sinner, always have been and most likely always will be.

    There is a big difference though, I’m not advocating for my sins to be the norm or accepted behaviour for others.

  103. A variety of reasons Phantom

    Work was taking up more and more of my time and being a member of Sinn Fein is quite a time commitment with regards to all the different boards and committees I was on and asked to go to. I was growing a little disillusioned with the lack of progress, not on political but organisational issues. The parties move more and more away from the traditional base didn’t help either. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when a senior member of the movement tried to interfere with the Blog by telling me what I could and could not write.
    I would add that from the age of 15 to 25 I was involved giving upwards of 15 to 30 hours a week to it. As a relatively young bloke I decided to reclaim my social time for social activities lol

    I’m not aligned to any other party and still consider myself a supporter, if critical at times. I still vote for the party and have many friends and family still in it but my desire to be active in it is no longer there.

  104. Chris

    So you believe in the Catechism not purely because you can justify it but because it is old. I do at least respect the fact that you hold it to be your own choice and do not wish it to be imposed on others. I take it you have no desire to object to the State given civil marraige status to those same sex couples who wish to avail of it ?

  105. My objection Colm, as I have alrady outlined, it that marriage should not be the preserve of the state under any circumstances. If the state wishes to recognise same sex civil partnerships as married couples then they can do what they like.

  106. Mr. Gaskin’s return is indeed welcome as he can explain how important it is to follow the rules of the Church against homosexuality and ignore it on murder when it comes to the IRA. (Now if that isn’t a welcome back what is?).

  107. Chris is a honest poster of his feelings and beliefs.

    I agree on some and disagree on more, but I’ll take the purity of his positions as more reliable than most.

  108. Troll

    Aren’t we all honest posters of our feelings and beliefs. Who would come here and say things they don’t feel ?

  109. Colm

    I’ve always been very drawn towards organisatons and situations where rules have been very important yet in my history I have broken a lot more than I have upheld lol

    That said we must all mature and grow up some day.

  110. Troll

    Is consistency admirable if it is in the cause of something that is wrong ?

    Ps – Not that I’m saying that is appilcable to Chris.

  111. Colm

    Consistency is a sign of someone who has seriously considered their position on a whole range of issues. Like troll I would prefer people like that than those who change like a fart in the wind.

  112. Well that’s the wind that’s blowing me off to sleep.

    Good night to you both !

    PS – Just like to finish by saying that Consistency can also mean thoughtless ignorant stubborness, it does not necessarily always reflect a considered position.

    Sweet dreams !

  113. //what I mean is Chris is consistent, //

    You see, Troll admires consistency.

    Like, if you even support Sinn Fein, you suppoort terrorism and are “sick and stupid”, and it would be better for society if your children were killed in a car bomb, but it’s “Welcome back, Mr Gaskin”.

  114. “Where I grew up the term Christian was akin to Protestant, a way of uniting all the denominations. As I’m not Protestant and as I don’t believe man is saved only by faith alone but also by good works I have never been comfortable with the catch all term.”

    Mr Gaskin,
    No argument there. Jesus said “By their fruits shall ye know them.” and then into Paul’s writings, “The fruit of the (Holy) Spirit is love, joy, peace etc.”
    So as a Protestant I say I am saved by grace, meaning that the death of Christ on the Cross is what justifies me, but the fruits of the Spirit in my life is what validates the reality of my faith.
    Thus in our Church the things that I do are as unto Christ, not to impress other people with my holiness and devotion.
    I have to say it is a real breath of fresh air to have a Catholic on here standing up for their faith instead of denigrating the Church.
    We all fail in various ways. There are things we don’t understand and cause us doubt, but it is the person of Our Lord and His love which allows us to lay those problems to one side.
    Wheat and tares!!

    Colm
    I have no doubt that your friends love each other, just as my wife love each other. It doesn’t get away from what marriage is traditionally and universally understood to mean.

  115. Prior to the early part of the 20th century the word voter only referred to a man because women did not and had never had the vote. Once the law was changed to allow women to vote in elections, the word meant a person with a vote.

  116. “Your arguments mirror arguments made against equal rights for people who happened to be black.”

    Good grief!
    Do you ever actually READ opposing arguments Mahons, or are you so convinced of your rightness that you’re already composing your next point?

    I already told you at 7:24,

    “Very true Mahons, but there was no biblical/theological justification for it, other than as Awful Allan mentions the totally human characteristic of discriminating.
    Also it was the influence of Evangelical Christianity which brought slavery to an end.”

  117. //there was no biblical/theological justification for it,//

    Agit8ed, there is as much Biblical justification for slavery and pillage and mass murder as there is for condemning homosexuality.

    I think that’s what mahons was referring to.

  118. //Prior to the early part of the 20th century the word voter only referred to a man because women did not and had never had the vote. Once the law was changed to allow women to vote in elections//

    Exactly.

    There’s been an unusual amount of nonsense spoken on this thread.
    “marriage”, “married to” etc. are understood by the vast majority of people in a legal context. Those who think they are only religious concepts can believe what they want, but they don’t get to make the laws or define words.

    I know several gay couples who are married, and already the meaning of marriage has shifted as far as I’m concerned. (And, no, my own marriage to a woman has for some reason not been shaken by this change.)

    Sooner or later, there will be enough gay married couples around for it to become normal for everyone, even for people like Agit8ed and Chris Gaskin etc.

  119. Agit8ed

    We shall have to agree to disagree regarding your position of Sola Fide.

    “Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. (Romans 1:5)”

    I have no problem opposing the Church Militant when it has sinned, as it has regarding the child abuse scandals.

    Noel

    “but they don’t get to make the laws or define words.”

    Who does then Noel?

  120. //Who does then Noel?//

    Chris, words are defined by the convention of use and by nothing else. If, say, people start using and understanding the word “car” more to mean a motor vehicle than a horse-drawn cart, then that is what the word comes to mean.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that some people won’t continue to have the cart meaning, but they will become increasingly isolated in communication with others, until they gradually die out.

    That has already happened for so many of our words (you only have to read an old book to realise how many) and is almost certainly going to happen with the word “marriage” too.

    Otherwise, the sun will continue to rise and rain will still be cold on your head. There are maany changes going on that give cause to worry, but this is not one of them.

  121. Colm

    The term voter meant one who votes (not merely has a vote), even before the law was changed. It still means that. At the moment people in prison are not allowed to vote. That still doesn’t mean that the definition of voter is “a person over 18, not in prison, not insane, not intellectually incapable or not in the Lords”. The definition of voter is unchanged but the laws about who will be allowed to legally changes. Some people vote who are under 18, they get the polling card by mistake. If they vote they are voters even if the law says they can’t.

  122. Colm

    That’s what I thought but Noel said that me and people like me don’t get to make the laws or define words.

    I was just interested to find out which liberal guru was empowered to do so.

  123. “There’s been an unusual amount of nonsense spoken on this thread.
    “marriage”, “married to” etc. are understood by the vast majority of people in a legal context. Those who think they are only religious concepts can believe what they want, but they don’t get to make the laws or define words”

    Noel,
    I think you’;re wrong about that. The very reason I referred to ALL cultures and ALL history is because however it has been defined, marriage has meant (usually) two people of opposite sexes came together in a relationship because they loved each other and with a view to producing children. Childless couples have had to cope with personal sorrow and family/public embarrassment. It’s universal.
    No society has ever held up same sex marriage as an alternative or add on to heterosexual marriage; the marrying of two DIFFERENT elements or sources to make one.

    Why can’t you and others of like mind acknowledge that as a historical fact? If you did, we could then move on to discussing the next stage of the debate which is if we are to take a step into this brave new world, what might be the consequences and pitfalls?
    It is the unwillingness to accept that particular point which (for me) undermines your position.

  124. Chris,
    and St Paul goes on to say,
    “6 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

    17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written: “The just shall live by faith.”

    🙂
    However, I will not argue the point because
    “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”
    2 Corinthians 5:10.
    It just really is a refreshing change to talk to a devout Catholic! You and I both know that within our churches there are things which cause us sorrow or frustration, in ourselves or others.
    But I hope we will both agree that whatever we feel led to do in this world, politically or socially is subservient to our understanding that all things will pass away, but the Lord and His Bride the Church Universal remains..

  125. //Noel said that me and people like me don’t get to make the laws or define words.//

    Obviously I meant that you don’t get to make laws or define words alone.
    I was also talking of the normal, non-technical meaning of words.

    But if you meant only the legal meaning, then those changes happen even quicker and the situation is even clearer (although I can’t see how this goes with your earlier position that marriage is not a matter for the state or laws). As soon as laws change, the legal meaning of a word changes. e.g. in certain places there are now legal same-sex marriages so the meaning of “marriage” in those places now includes gay unions. The rest of the developed world will also no doubt go the same way shortly.

    Either way – whether by legal or common definition – “marriage” will soon mean all matrimonial unions, including those between two men.

  126. //Why can’t you and others of like mind acknowledge that as a historical fact?//

    Because it’s as irrelevant for social change and this debate as that other historical fact that until the 19th C no society had also presented as an alternative a society where there is no slavery, where women have equal rights, where ever adult can vote, etc.
    Your position is that because it never happened before, it’s wrong. Well, that’s also wrong.

  127. Look, scarcely have I proven that gay marriage will soon be generally accepted when the Pope announces his resignation!

  128. “Your position is that because it never happened before, it’s wrong. Well, that’s also wrong.”

    Aah! We make a little bit of progress Senor Noel.

    Would you concede that as long as man has been on the earth, slavery has existed?
    That in Europe warring tribes took prisoners and turned them into slaves and in Africa ditto.
    Slavery as a modern shibboleth occurred because as humanity (specifically Western Christian humanity) progressed and reading was opened up to the masses, people began to question things they had accepted as givens?

    The same with women as being treated as the weaker vessels. From a Convolutionary viewpoint men as the stronger and more aggressive part of the population dominated women who were weaker, had periods and bore children.
    The OLD Testament says that God created woman as a helpmeet,

    “Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. Genesis 2:18
    Women are the other half of man. When we abuse them we demean ourselves. And btw Noel, nothing has changed! Women are still being abused, prostituted and dehumanised by men, despite the vote.
    So we might be able to agree that the Bible does not teach that we should abuse the woman God created as our friend and helper? I have never ever attended a church which taught we should ill treat, abuse or dehumanise women.

    So moving on to your last point,
    “Your position is that because it never happened before, it’s wrong. Well, that’s also wrong.”

    Convolution has to accept that all young bearing mammals were brought about by a male and a female animal copulating. Yes?
    In some cases the female seems to do most of the nurturing and rearing, but she relies on the males to protect them, as in prides of lions.
    Moving up the Convolutionary scale to Man, human offspring benefit most from a stable, loving family where both parents accept their (differing) obligations as role models. Together they provide food, shelter, love, boundaries and encouragement, so that their children have the best possible chances in life.
    (And don’t forget, I have lived and worked with the damaged offspring of the alternative approach.)

    So if perhaps you can accept the validity of that, surely we need to think long and hard about how same sex, adopted, donored, test tubedm, babies born to same sex couples might turn out, and the effects of that on ordinary heterosexually produced children might be?
    As a Christian I would say that the God who created us is the best one to consult regarding happiness and fulfilment. God is not anti science or anything else, but as He knows the end from the beginning it might be more sensible to listen to Him.

    Mahon’s mistake is to (perhaps deliberately?) confuse the Old Testament with the New. God revealed Himself to man through the Jews, who were not chosen because they were better or superior; they were chosen because they were representative of man in all his “messeduppedness”.

  129. Strange notion – re being too old to be pope. We were talking at work about how we need to adapt our yard stick for relative age as we grow older.

    You go from “don’t policemen look young”. Then it’s doctors and surgeons…. and on and on up to as a colleague exclaimed “OMG the US Preident is younger than me!” We decided that we weren’t totally over the hill until we though judges looked young but the absolute ultimate, book me into the care home stage is when Popes look young.

    It was a very regrettable development in Britis politics when it seemed to be accepted that PM is a young man’s job. The notion that Alun Johnston was too old to lead the Labour Party is really a sad state of affairs. I’d much prefer him to be a potential PM than Milliband.

  130. //When we abuse them we demean ourselves. And btw Noel, nothing has changed! Women are still being abused, prostituted and dehumanised by men, despite the vote.
    So we might be able to agree that the Bible does not teach that we should abuse the woman God created as our friend and helper? I have never ever attended a church which taught we should ill treat, abuse or dehumanise women.//

    Agit8ed, I can’t for the life of me understand what you’re getting at.
    Did anybody here mention abuse of women?

    I’ll try to make it simple:

    You mentioned the censure of homosexuality in the Bible. It was pointed out to you that the Bible in some cases also allows, indeed even calls for, massacre, rape of women, slavery etc., so – even if one were of a religious inclination – what is considered allowed and not allowed in the Bible can’t be taken as a final guide, i.e. your argument is bullshit.

    Your second argument was that because something (same-sex marriage) was never allowed throughout history, it must also not be allowed now. It was again shown to you that there were many other things we now concider evil that, until a relatively recent time, had also never been allowed in history, but we now agree that ending that tradition was the right thing to do. i.e. this second argument is also bullshit.

    Is that any clearer?

  131. //Strange notion – re being too old to be pope.//

    Speaking of our changing perceptions of word meaning etc. I was once in a group that was discussing the meaning of the word “bachelor”, and whether it is now obsolete. We decided that each writes on one side of a small piece of paper our idea of a typical bachelor, and on the other side our idea of who is definitely not one.

    On my “definitely not” side I wrote “the Pope”, and sure another a young lady wrote “the Pope” as her typical bachelor.

    All things to all men.

  132. I might have missed it in this thread, but did you see that the Pope just did resign due to his age?

  133. “Prior to the early part of the 20th century the word voter only referred to a man because women did not and had never had the vote. Once the law was changed to allow women to vote in elections”
    Oh, perhaps that’s what I was referring to in regards to women not having the vote. They were not treated as equals. They were therefore open to being abused.
    Is that any clearer Noel?

  134. Yeah,
    I heard it a few hours ago Troll.
    Some people are rather cruelly saying he let his membership of the Hitler Jugend movement lapse…

  135. Colm,
    without wanting to increase any sense of guilt you might be experiencing, I think you are unduly hard on Allan…
    It makes me so glad you and I are best buddies 😉

  136. Colm,
    All the friends and collegues I have known and worked with who confess as Catholics, never cease to be Catholic whatever they experience through life’s journey.
    If I may make so bold, you didn’t ask to be born homosexual. Probably your parents (God rest their souls) were not thrilled that you were born gay. They struggled with their love for you as their child and what perhaps they wanted you to be. I think your experience has turned you against the church and you are very hurt because you feel you are a disappointment to your parents and your community.
    As an evil and misguided Protestant Christian I would say first off that I don’t judge you for being homosexual. As far as I understand these things you are what you are.
    I believe that Jesus died for you as much as he died for St Peter and St Paul and all the Saints.
    It isn’t a question of trying to justify your existence, it’s more to do with the fact that Jesus Christ as part of the Godhead foreknew you as much as He foreknew any of us, yet loved us and that His transforming power could change us into His likeness.
    If your parents loved you – which most assuredly they did; then how much more does God love you?

  137. I don’t know if I’ve missed anything here, but I’d like to tell you, Agit8ed, that you are totally offside in bringing Colm’s relationship with his parents, who died in the past year, I believe, into this discussion.

    Who anyone here likes to go to bed with is neither here nor there, but nobody – least of all someone like Colm – wants to hear your unctuous and patronising crap – veiled in some religious bullshit, as usual – when it involves whether his parents loved and accepted him or not. Your presumptuousness is as bizarre as it is disgraceful, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    This is just typical of the rank stupidity the discussions here have descended into lately.

  138. Noel,
    So don’t read it then.
    It wasn’t meant to be patronising or unctuous.
    I will say it again. I have never ever insulted Colm or previously Jaz for being gay.
    All you are doing is proving what I have said many times before, “No man is an Island.”
    I think I was one of the earliest to commiserate with Colm about the loss of his parents. In fact I contacted David about it when I became aware something was wrong.

    Just as I pointed out that I befriended a victim of the Magdalene Laundry survivors.
    It ain’t unctuous Noel, it is reality. I haven’t seen much here on ATW about caring or befriending them Irish!
    I was trying to explore Colm’s attitude to the Church re Gay marriage, not condemn him.
    If I did upset him I would apologise to him.

  139. Thanks Noel and Aileen , but honestly I am not annoyed or offended by Agit8ed’s speculation about my personal circumstances or relationship with my parents. It is irrlevent but he means well. I’d rather just discuss topics in general spiced with a little light hearted banter and not get into personal arguments which can only – as we have seen recently – sour things here.

  140. Agit8ed, as we’ve seen here and on other threads, you seem to be particularly confused and rambling today. I presume you have some health issues, so if Colm let’s you go, so will I.

  141. Noel,
    “Agit8ed, as we’ve seen here and on other threads, you seem to be particularly confused and rambling today.”
    When those I count as unbiased and objective tell me that I will listen. Not to you.
    Colm might admit I was one of the first if not the first to pick up on the loss of his father and express my condolences. I don’t think many of youse good Irishmen were there in the vanguard. I express my concerns for people out of our common humanity- not tribal allegiances.
    Secondly it amazes me that intelligent people fail to address my concerns on various issues because I question theirs.
    I could not give a stuff whether you or anyone else lets me go because Colm or anyone else does.
    AS I’ve said to you especially before, come round and see me and I’ll give you a good Agitateo ecumenical nose blessing.
    You think you can chuck all kinds of insults at “rambling me”, so come round and see me. I’ll send you home wearing a bigger hat.

Comments are closed.