The Bible in quotations

[Maguire01]

You sound like you're discriminating John. Denying his love. his right to be with both women. they are all consenting adults.
You're a poligamy-phobe!!!

I'm not denying John anything. I was merely pointing out that he's not being denied anything that others are getting.

[The Iceman]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

This is absurd. John in Strabane does have equal rights. He could go to any of those 50 countries, get married again, and come back and get the same benefits.

why should he have to leave?
Why shouldn't gay people leave then Muppet? Why are John's rights less than theirs?

It all comes back to my point with Maguire. All of this boils down to our individual "beliefs" on equality and equal rights.
Mine are different than yours.
Obviously John in strabane's are too.

Animal Farm.....

[Maguire01]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

This is absurd. John in Strabane does have equal rights. He could go to any of those 50 countries, get married again, and come back and get the same benefits.

why should he have to leave?
Why shouldn't gay people leave then Muppet? Why are John's rights less than theirs?

It all comes back to my point with Maguire. All of this boils down to our individual "beliefs" on equality and equal rights.
Mine are different than yours.
Obviously John in strabane's are too.

Animal Farm.....

The point is that gay people are being denied something that heterosexual people aren't - there's an inequality. John is being denied something that everyone else in the country is also being denied, hence it is not an equality issue, just a limitation on his ability to do as he wishes.

But i've given you my answer, imperfect as you might consider it. Now will you respond to my question, on why we'd use the bible as the basis for issues of sexual equality, but not issues of gender equality?

[muppet]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

This is absurd. John in Strabane does have equal rights. He could go to any of those 50 countries, get married again, and come back and get the same benefits.

why should he have to leave?
Why shouldn't gay people leave then Muppet? Why are John's rights less than theirs?

It all comes back to my point with Maguire. All of this boils down to our individual "beliefs" on equality and equal rights.
Mine are different than yours.
Obviously John in strabane's are too.

Animal Farm.....

You claimed John didn't have equal rights with the polygamist. He does. The polygamist got married abroad. John can do the same. The polygamist can get benefits. So can John. John is not discriminated against by comparison with the polygamist which is what you said.

Now compare the gay person. John can get married to his partner. The gay person can't.

If you want to start a campaign or a thread on polygamy go ahead.

[LCohen]

With regard to Jesus' attitude towards sin - yourself Iceman, and other posters have made the point that homosexuality has been proscribed in Scripture - a statement which, by its very nature, is an exercise in literalism. So, given that you can only go by the written word of the Gospels as to what Jesus thought was a sin, we can only point out that Jesus never pronounced on homosexuality, therefore we do not know whether he thought it a sin or not. Given the incendiary nature of his interpretations of the Old Testament, there is no guarantee that he did.

So we know for a fact that the texts state he disapproved of prostitution and adultery. He also disliked usury and financial dealings, though he did recommend obeying the tax laws, rather than the direct action of non payment. Given the complete absence in the texts of him addressing homosexuality, I'm going to assume that he had no problem with it. He sounds like an ancient, Middle Eastern, Irish Times/guardian reader. (This may be a bit of a debating trick, but it was you who brought this to the level of textual criticism)

I think this rather uncharacteristic of you - your arguments have had solid footing up until now but I've heard this from much younger people. "If it isn't in the Bible then how do we know Jesus thought it was a sin?" He doesn't mention child rape, adult rape, abortion, euthanasia etc etc but we know He disapproved. Remember there was no Bible as we know if for a few hundred years after Christ. How did the Christian world survive? Teachings were passed on by word of mouth. Some were written down and taught. But mostly passed on through the early church. The Bible itself says that everything that Jesus said was not written down - are you so naive as to suggest that the 3 years of his active ministry could be contained in every detail in one book or 4 versions of that one book?

With regard to my point about married priests, surely the fact that the church has made an exception for Anglican priests proves my point about the fluid nature of the sacrament - once, the disciples and evangelists were allowed marry, than they were banned by the church from doing so, and now the church makes exceptions for Anglican converts.

This is not some immutable and unchanging sacrament, its governance (as you have helpfully proved for me) is a human construct and is changed according to the needs of the church. To argue its unchanging nature is simply not factual and will not hold up as a reason to withhold state marriage from homosexual couples.

No it doesn't. There is no law within the doctrine on marriage that says a Priest cannot be married. Priests take vows of celibacy. Those are two different things. Surely you can see that? Priests through their vows make that choice. If they didn't take the vows they would be free to marry and where throughout the history of the church until the vow was brought in.

By the way, I don't think it is possible to use the words "acceptance and tolerance" too loosely - I think there is a huge need for them - the more of them the better. Also, I never mentioned a united Ireland - but because i mentioned the Republic, you chose to bring it up as one of my motivations. Another debating trick, but it is easy enough to call. I said republicanism with a small r, by which i mean the ethos that inspired the American and French revolutions, and in Ireland people like Wolfe Tone - which in its best expressions throughout the centuries means an inclusive, secular democracy, with no established religion. I was making no connection with our own particular political situation on the island of Ireland. Indeed, this referendum only applies to the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland. Fair dues to you for trying to stir the pot though.

You used the words acceptance and tolerance too loosely together. Acceptance and tolerance are two different things (we've been down this road before). There has been an enormous shift in the way we have come to understand tolerance over recent years -- from defending the rights of those who hold different beliefs to affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct (except Christians! ) I tolerate your right to have another belief about religion, I tolerate gay people's right to have other beliefs about marriage but I don't accept them as valid or correct. Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things.

You are perfectly entitled to hold fast to the Holy Spirit - however, you are talking as if the vote has already been held. It hasn't, the argument is still alive, and until it is decided, by the people of this state, then your Holy Spirit better be ready for a fairly robust time of it against my secular humanism - we're down to it now and we're about to turn the river card. But please don't sulk before the game is lost. This is either something we both feel strongly about and should be allowed feel strongly about, or else it's not worth it. I do think it is worth it, whatever way the vote goes and whichever law we have to uphold as democrats in a Republic.

I think the vote is a done deal. It will pass with a resounding YES and I stated already what my reaction will be....... circles here...

Iceman, characteristically of you, unfortunately, you have ignored the meaning of my post. It as you who first brought up Scripture as a source of the prohibition against gay marriage, thus making this into a textual discussion. You have been asked to provide quotes from relevant passages - you sourced the Catechism and St. Paul - both written a long time after the death of Christ. So you are the one not on a solid ground, having made a statement which you cannot back up. As for my being naive, no i don't think that all of Jesus' life and words could be contained in the Gospels - unlike you however, I dd not let my naivety stop me from researching the provenance of the gospels - I suggest you read "In the Shadow of the Sword" by Tom holland from page 181 onwards for a precis of the organisation of the Church from Nicea to Chalcadon - it was based on the politics of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, the Gospels as we know them became the canon in 367 AD after a bishop called Athanasius sent a letter defining the 27 Books of the New Testament, and all other Gospels and documents contrary to the canon were rooted out and destroyed.

So, we cannot say for certain what Jesus approved of or disapproved of, unless we accept the extant Gospels, as, well, Gospel. And if we do, then we do not see any evidence of Jesus disapproving of homosexuality. We can certainly posit his opposition to child rape through passages such as "Suffer the little children to come unto me";his disapproval of euthanasia, as he had advised his disciples to follow the ten commandments, whilst adding his own two commandments to the list; perhaps his disapproval of abortion on those grounds, though he was undoubtedly liberal in his forgiveness of prostitutes. However he says nothing, absolutely nothing, about homosexuality, unless he expressed it in a long destroyed Gnostic text. And given how rigidly the Church was enforcing the prejudices of the time (the 4th century), it was certainly not beyond them to delete any tacit approval or even tolerance from the rapidly forming religio. 

And to close this particular circle, it was you who brought up Scripture as the bedrock of your belief. I even told you it was a debating trick above, but you are the one standing on sand, not me.

What really amazes me sometimes about the devout is their refusal to marvel at the ambiguity and fascination that lies in the historical figure of Jesus. you have this person, who we know existed, whose presence in the historical record is fleeting but there and he is probably the single most important man in the history of the world, whether you believe in his divinity or not. His creed has exalted and destroyed nations and forever changed our planet for good and ill, but the basics of his tenets are so simple as to resonate with us today, through the religion, but also through culture, music, the arts. And yet, for a presence so allusive and all pervading, you are simply able to say "We know he disapproved".  Was Jesus' message not that God was judgment, but that God was love? How is it possible to miss the point so spectacularly?

As for the point about married priests, again you prove my point - non converts are made to take a vow of celibacy, it is a discipline rather than a doctrine, but none who refuse to take it are allowed continue to priesthood. The earliest mentions of priestly celibacy are from the 4th century AD, the councils of Levi and Carthage. However, the ordination of converted Anglican ministers could not have happened, by definition until after the Reformation in the 16th century. So exceptions are made by the Church, the Sacrament of marriage can be accessed by those who, by tradition it is usually denied, thus the immutable nature of your argument is nullified.

As for your final point re acceptance and tolerance, and my apparent disinclination to tolerate or accept Christian views. As far as I am concerned all Christians are free to follow their beliefs and I respect them. But when their beliefs stray into the secular realm, and impinge on the laws of our country then they must be subjected to the same rigorous argument as any other beliefs in the political arena. As I stated before, this is a secular referendum to give a civil right to a minority to access a secular service of the Republic. If you insist on setting your opposition on Scripture and Faith, you can expect to have them examined as any other protagonist would. This does not invalidate your right to hold them, or my tolerance of that right - but remember, you are the one extending your personal beliefs as a plank in a political struggle. Don't be surprised if you find you have brought a knife to a gun fight.

Sublime.

There is hope for the country yet

[LCohen]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

Sorry, what is John not being allowed to do that others are? In what way is he being discriminated against?

[The Iceman]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

This is absurd. John in Strabane does have equal rights. He could go to any of those 50 countries, get married again, and come back and get the same benefits.

why should he have to leave?
Why shouldn't gay people leave then Muppet? Why are John's rights less than theirs?

It all comes back to my point with Maguire. All of this boils down to our individual "beliefs" on equality and equal rights.
Mine are different than yours.
Obviously John in strabane's are too.

Animal Farm.....

The point is that gay people are being denied something that heterosexual people aren't - there's an inequality. John is being denied something that everyone else in the country is also being denied, hence it is not an equality issue, just a limitation on his ability to do as he wishes.

But i've given you my answer, imperfect as you might consider it. Now will you respond to my question, on why we'd use the bible as the basis for issues of sexual equality, but not issues of gender equality?

i think we should use the bible for gender equality. Understood properly if men loved their wives like Christ loved the Church then surely the world would be a better place.....

But I don't agree that equal rights for women or civil rights for black people is the same as equal rights for sexual orientation..... And 150+ countries in the world agree with that...

[The Iceman]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

Sorry, what is John not being allowed to do that others are? In what way is he being discriminated against?

there are people in the UK in polygamist marriages currently receiving benefits based on their marital status. Their polygamous relationship is recognized for benefits purposes...
John can't even get married a 2nd time legally in the UK, his girlfriend lives with him and his wife and she cant benefit from any civil or state recognized relationship. If John dies she gets nothing..... etc etc...

[LCohen]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

This is absurd. John in Strabane does have equal rights. He could go to any of those 50 countries, get married again, and come back and get the same benefits.

why should he have to leave?
Why shouldn't gay people leave then Muppet? Why are John's rights less than theirs?

It all comes back to my point with Maguire. All of this boils down to our individual "beliefs" on equality and equal rights.
Mine are different than yours.
Obviously John in strabane's are too.

Animal Farm.....

The point is that gay people are being denied something that heterosexual people aren't - there's an inequality. John is being denied something that everyone else in the country is also being denied, hence it is not an equality issue, just a limitation on his ability to do as he wishes.

But i've given you my answer, imperfect as you might consider it. Now will you respond to my question, on why we'd use the bible as the basis for issues of sexual equality, but not issues of gender equality?

i think we should use the bible for gender equality. Understood properly if men loved their wives like Christ loved the Church then surely the world would be a better place.....

But I don't agree that equal rights for women or civil rights for black people is the same as equal rights for sexual orientation..... And 150+ countries in the world agree with that...

And soon it will be one less and then a few less again and so on.

Gaining your solace from the number of people who agree with you rather than the merist of your own argument is like getting your height from perching on an ice cube

[LCohen]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

Sorry, what is John not being allowed to do that others are? In what way is he being discriminated against?

there are people in the UK in polygamist marriages currently receiving benefits based on their marital status. Their polygamous relationship is recognized for benefits purposes...
John can't even get married a 2nd time legally in the UK, his girlfriend lives with him and his wife and she cant benefit from any civil or state recognized relationship. If John dies she gets nothing..... etc etc...

Sorry - what is he being prevented from doing in the UK that someone else is being allowed to do?

[Maguire01]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

This is absurd. John in Strabane does have equal rights. He could go to any of those 50 countries, get married again, and come back and get the same benefits.

why should he have to leave?
Why shouldn't gay people leave then Muppet? Why are John's rights less than theirs?

It all comes back to my point with Maguire. All of this boils down to our individual "beliefs" on equality and equal rights.
Mine are different than yours.
Obviously John in strabane's are too.

Animal Farm.....

The point is that gay people are being denied something that heterosexual people aren't - there's an inequality. John is being denied something that everyone else in the country is also being denied, hence it is not an equality issue, just a limitation on his ability to do as he wishes.

But i've given you my answer, imperfect as you might consider it. Now will you respond to my question, on why we'd use the bible as the basis for issues of sexual equality, but not issues of gender equality?

i think we should use the bible for gender equality. Understood properly if men loved their wives like Christ loved the Church then surely the world would be a better place.....

But I don't agree that equal rights for women or civil rights for black people is the same as equal rights for sexual orientation..... And 150+ countries in the world agree with that...

Many of those countries also struggle with equal rights for women.
And I can't understand why you differentiate between gender and race, and sexual orientation. All are things outside of an individual's control.

In relation to your point on the bible and gender equality, you've just made an interpretation based on modern standards, rather than on how women were considered in the bible.

[screenexile]

A great addition to the debate if you have the time. . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b053gny0?fb_ref=Default

[J70]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

Sorry, what is John not being allowed to do that others are? In what way is he being discriminated against?

there are people in the UK in polygamist marriages currently receiving benefits based on their marital status. Their polygamous relationship is recognized for benefits purposes...
John can't even get married a 2nd time legally in the UK, his girlfriend lives with him and his wife and she cant benefit from any civil or state recognized relationship. If John dies she gets nothing..... etc etc...

John can go to one of the other places, get married again and receive the benefits the same as the rest.

There is no inequality issue. Everyone is subject to the same rules.

[J70]

Polygamy is legal in over 50 countries.
In the UK people who marry into polygamous marriages outside of the UK are allowed benefits! So John in strabane doesnt have equal rights.
Will you campaign for him Maguire? Will you start a thread for him?
Poor auld John hi

This is absurd. John in Strabane does have equal rights. He could go to any of those 50 countries, get married again, and come back and get the same benefits.

why should he have to leave?
Why shouldn't gay people leave then Muppet? Why are John's rights less than theirs?

It all comes back to my point with Maguire. All of this boils down to our individual "beliefs" on equality and equal rights.
Mine are different than yours.
Obviously John in strabane's are too.

Animal Farm.....

The point is that gay people are being denied something that heterosexual people aren't - there's an inequality. John is being denied something that everyone else in the country is also being denied, hence it is not an equality issue, just a limitation on his ability to do as he wishes.

But i've given you my answer, imperfect as you might consider it. Now will you respond to my question, on why we'd use the bible as the basis for issues of sexual equality, but not issues of gender equality?

i think we should use the bible for gender equality. Understood properly if men loved their wives like Christ loved the Church then surely the world would be a better place.....

But I don't agree that equal rights for women or civil rights for black people is the same as equal rights for sexual orientation..... And 150+ countries in the world agree with that...

How is it different? As someone else said, no one chooses to be gay, any more than they choose their race or gender (let's leave the transexuals, hermaphrodites etc out of it for the sake of argument).

And appealing to the number of countries denying gay rights is hardly a prize endorsement. First, its a relatively new issue. Second, the number recognizing gay rights are increasing all the time. Third, many of these countries are yet to even address women's rights.

[muppet]

I was just reading about Genesis. Apparently the Torah (Jewish) equivalent, from where we get ours, begins with a book called Bereishit. If this book was written in the woods, then God has a great sense of humour.