British Lions rugby legend Gareth Thomas comes out

[BVS]

Are you saying that the refusal to bless same-sex marriages is synonymous with homophobia?

Yes

The truth is out there yet they've allowed misinterpretations of texts due to their own biases. Not only that but they've actively tried to reach beyond their own governance and force their beliefs onto a secular society which shows me there is contempt.

They haven't tried to force the bible's view on gluttony, divorce, or any other of the nonsensical laws found in Leviticus... why this one?

I can only think of one answer.

 

[Dalton]

Yes

The truth is out there yet they've allowed misinterpretations of texts due to their own biases. Not only that but they've actively tried to reach beyond their own governance and force their beliefs onto a secular society which shows me there is contempt.

They haven't tried to force the bible's view on gluttony, divorce, or any other of the nonsensical laws found in Leviticus... why this one?

I can only think of one answer.

Misinterpretations of the texts? Are you disagreeing with theologians who have spent their entire lives reading the original texts?

 

[Dalton]

BTW - this response is as narrow minded as those from "believers" who try to characterize all homosexuals as pedophiles and deviants.

 

[Dalton]

btw - where in the fuck is irvine? At least he would have laughed at the "kicking balls" joke. You lot must be fantastic at funerals.

 

[BVS]

Misinterpretations of the texts? Are you disagreeing with theologians who have spent their entire lives reading the original texts?

Based on my research, yes... Those that have seen and studied the original text and came to the conclusion that homosexuality is explicitly called out as a sin post Jesus would be wrong.

BTW - this response is as narrow minded as those from "believers" who try to characterize all homosexuals as pedophiles and deviants.

How so?

 

[Dalton]

Based on my research, yes... Those that have seen and studied the original text and came to the conclusion that homosexuality is explicitly called out as a sin post Jesus would be wrong.

Fair enough. But you recognize that this puts you at odds with some of the greatest christian theologians in history. Men and women (in the last hundred years) that have spent their entire lives reading the original texts as well. I don't believe that discredits your beliefs, but you were quick to throw that out earlier.

I've come down on the other side of this argument. I've read much of the pertinent work on both sides of this debate as well as the bible itself and I would say that any reading of the text that comes down on the side of the bible not calling homosexuality a sin is terrible exegesis that begins with an agenda and not good work.

That's coming from a guy that believes homosexuals should be free to do what they want and who doesn't believe the bible has any magical powers or divine authority.

How so?

I've answered this question.

 

[Diemen]

Yes

The truth is out there yet they've allowed misinterpretations of texts due to their own biases. Not only that but they've actively tried to reach beyond their own governance and force their beliefs onto a secular society which shows me there is contempt.

They haven't tried to force the bible's view on gluttony, divorce, or any other of the nonsensical laws found in Leviticus... why this one?

I can only think of one answer.

You're lumping an awful lot of people together there, BVS. I don't think that everyone who believes the Bible says homosexuality is a sin is also trying to contemptuously reach beyond their own governance to force their beliefs onto a secular society.

Lets try and keep the debate a little less histrionic, shall we?

 

[BVS]

You're lumping an awful lot of people together there, BVS. I don't think that everyone who believes the Bible says homosexuality is a sin is also trying to contemptuously reach beyond their own governance to force their beliefs onto a secular society.

Lets try and keep the debate a little less histrionic, shall we?

Do you believe gay marriage would even be an issue if it wasn't for the church? Yes, I'm lumping "the church" together, but what I mean is the imaginary collective of mainstream organized Christian religion.

 

[Dalton]

Do you believe gay marriage would even be an issue if it wasn't for the church? Yes, I'm lumping "the church" together, but what I mean is the imaginary collective of mainstream organized Christian religion.

Actually this question is a major theme in a work that I would commend to you: Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William Webb. You'll disagree with him entirely, but he articulates his case well.

 

[BVS]

Fair enough. But you recognize that this puts you at odds with some of the greatest christian theologians in history. Men and women (in the last hundred years) that have spent their entire lives reading the original texts as well. I don't believe that discredits your beliefs, but you were quick to throw that out earlier.

I've come down on the other side of this argument. I've read much of the pertinent work on both sides of this debate as well as the bible itself and I would say that any reading of the text that comes down on the side of the bible not calling homosexuality a sin is terrible exegesis that begins with an agenda and not good work.

Here's the very cliff notes version: It's mentioned in Leviticus which debatably is negated once Jesus came. If it's not negated then I want those theologians arguing for a law that forces the woman to be kicked out of bed when she's mensturating. The only other mention is Paul, who oddly takes the same phrasing from Leviticus. So then the big debate comes down to, is this God's word or Paul's bias? Is a book that's been written by man, translated by man and published by companies that have had spelling and gramatical errors God's word or inspired by, is it inerrant?

 

[Dalton]

Here's the very cliff notes version: It's mentioned in Leviticus which debatably is negated once Jesus came. If it's not negated then I want those theologians arguing for a law that forces the woman to be kicked out of bed when she's mensturating. The only other mention is Paul, who oddly takes the same phrasing from Leviticus. So then the big debate comes down to, is this God's word or Paul's bias? Is a book that's been written by man, translated by man and published by companies that have had spelling and gramatical errors God's word or inspired by, is it inerrant?

Wow BVS, even for a cliff notes version, that summary is so thin and riddled with inaccuracies that it's hard to take seriously. It's cool if you haven't studied this subject. It's a pretty backwater subject in 21st Century America. But why spend your time arguing on the internet about a subject you don't have a good grasp on?

 

[BVS]

Wow BVS, even for a cliff notes version, that summary is so thin and riddled with inaccuracies that it's hard to take seriously. It's cool if you haven't studied this subject. It's a pretty backwater subject in 21st Century America. But why spend your time arguing on the internet about a subject you don't have a good grasp on?

Please enlighten me... where are the inaccuracies?

 

[anitram]

Bascally this is not an organisation worthy of my support in any way, even tacit. As a committed doctrinaire atheist, the funerals and weddings thing is tricky for me. I would hope I will never attend mass or confession again (and indeed haven't done for years) but if I stopped going to funerals or weddings it could be deemed offensive by the type of people who put a lot of store in these rituals.

I think if I had failed to attend my grandmother's funeral based on your sort of position it would not only be offensive and hurtful to my family, but to her. You go there to pay respects to the deceased, and for better or worse, she was a very pious woman. My views of the Church or its political or social stances take a secondary position to my respect for my grandmother and all she did for me over the 29 years that I was lucky to have her.

Isn't even a hard decision for me.

 

[melon]

Fair enough. But you recognize that this puts you at odds with some of the greatest christian theologians in history. Men and women (in the last hundred years) that have spent their entire lives reading the original texts as well. I don't believe that discredits your beliefs, but you were quick to throw that out earlier.

I've come down on the other side of this argument. I've read much of the pertinent work on both sides of this debate as well as the bible itself and I would say that any reading of the text that comes down on the side of the bible not calling homosexuality a sin is terrible exegesis that begins with an agenda and not good work.

That's coming from a guy that believes homosexuals should be free to do what they want and who doesn't believe the bible has any magical powers or divine authority.

As mentioned earlier, I've outlined ad infinitum et ad nauseum as to why modern homosexuality just flat out does not exist in the Bible. Perhaps it is most simply and blatantly obvious in that "homosexuality," as a word and as a term referring to sexual orientation, just flat out did not exist until the 19th century. Less obvious to those who don't study dead languages would be the source texts that etymologically confirm that all the supposed references to "homosexuality" in the Bible are actually references to archaic practices that died in Antiquity that have nothing to do with modern homosexuality.

Of course, that's presuming that Biblical fundamentalism even matters, which it doesn't in my own Catholic theological tradition. Because I'd rather not repeat myself, I'll let one of my favourite theologians, James Alison, do it for me:

“But the Bible says...”? A Catholic reading of Romans 1 - by James Alison

What has pushed me in the direction of offering this reading is really two things: in the first place, I was brought up Evangelical Protestant, and this text, Romans 1, was really a text of terror for me, a text in some way associated with a deep emotional and spiritual annihilation, something inflicting paralysis. So, finding myself ever freer of that terror, it seems proper to try and offer a road map to others who, whatever their ecclesial belonging, may suffer from the same binding of conscience that a certain received reading of this text has seemed to impose. But there is a second reason, no less important to my mind: owing to arguments surrounding Episcopal appointments in the Anglican Church on both sides of the Atlantic, a huge amount of press has been generated in which it has been repeated ad nauseam that “The Bible is quite clear...” about this or that. Furthermore we are told time and again that those who think either that gay people should be allowed to marry, or that being gay should be no bar to Episcopal consecration, are in some way repudiating an obvious written sacred injunction. The impression that “the Bible is quite clear” has passed largely unchallenged in the media, which has found it easiest to present the argument as being between conservative people who take the Bible seriously (and are thus against gay people) and liberal people who don't (and thus aren't against gay people).

Well, what is being treated to public travesty here is the Bible. Indeed it seems to me that if anything, the truth is closer to being exactly the other way round: you need a very modern liberal reading of the Bible in order to make it a weapon against gay people, and those who refuse to do this are, by and large, much more traditional in their Biblical reading habits. But this sounds so counterintuitive in our world that I'd like to take time to show that there is at least one perfectly respectable Catholic way to read this text which enables us to see it in quite a different light.

Enjoy.

 

[melon]

I am a believer in that rebel from Nazareth.

I believe he was God.

I also believe in the scriptures, he often quoted.

Homosexuality is a sin. It's not right. It's not a gay life at all.


One of my best friends was homosexual, he killed himself at he age of 47.

Oh where to begin and where to end... Perhaps it's best to pray that you'll understand why this is illogical and incorrect without me having to give a lecture.

All the best.

 

[Dalton]

Thanks for the link, melon. I haven't read any of Alison's work. Have you read any of John McNeil or Dan Helmeniak's works? What did you think?

 

[melon]

Thanks for the link, melon. I haven't read any of Alison's work. Have you read any of John McNeil or Dan Helmeniak's works? What did you think?

I haven't read either of them in-depth, but I do have a passing familiarity with their works, along with that of John Boswell, who appears to have influenced both. Boswell tends nowadays to be more of a liability than an asset as his "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" has since fallen out of favour, and I'm currently of the view that much of it probably is an embellishment of archaic medieval rituals with no modern counterpart--which happens to be the exact same problem with modern embellishments of archaic antiquarian rituals and then labeling them as "(anti-)homosexual" in the Bible.

As this entire subject tends to be very contentious, as you can imagine, what's very interesting to me is how the issue of modern homosexuality having no Biblical equivalent is becoming widely accepted amongst serious Biblical scholars--that is, those scholars with no ideological axe to grind. And what makes Alison so very interesting and refreshing to read is that he approaches Catholicism and the Bible with an essentially "conservative," Thomist approach. Theologically, he seems anything but radical, and yet he is quite unafraid to make very bold pronouncements--an approach that ultimately hearkens back to Aquinas himself. I find his work to be very promising.

 

[Irvine511]

Just because Thorpe has an eye for fashion and takes care of himself doesn't make him gay....always pissed me off this assumption.

though i'm not Australian, i do keep very informed on the world of swimming (and gay culture), and this rumor has been around for a long time, and it seems a relatively good assumption to me.

i could be wrong, absolutely.

 

[Irvine511]

You have a lot to learn.

One of my best friends is gay. He doesn't need to 'come out', because we, his friends, know it already. I was out for a few drinks a few nights before Christmas and it rapidly became clear that the 'friend' of my friend was more than just a friend. And seeing them out, proud, and happy to be as such in what used to be one of the most homophobic cities in Europe was one of the most life affirming and joyous experiences I've been part of in a long time.

So what do you think of that, Iron Horse?

so, i'm obviously way late on this thread, but just wanted to add a to this post, for the many different things it touches on.