Homosexuality still a sin, says Welby

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Well, I was never a member at all, though I went to a few services as a Scout, and went to a C of E school, so not particularly an expert either!

Ah I forgot about the seven years of C of E school school thing. Maybe we both are experts?

It was the religion classes that turned me toward atheism. God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, in particular.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I tried Googling >Jesus sex< to see if he had had anything to say on the topic and the answer appears to be "No".

However, I did find,

Was Jesus gay? Probably

It's by Paul Oestreicher. "Paul Oestreicher is an Anglican priest, and peace and human rights activist".

Not excommunicated yet?

An excerpt from your Guardian article:

Quote:

That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast.

The Darvinci Code makes a big deal about one of the Last Supper depictions also - reading hidden meanings in it. I don't get it...... I mean why should an artist have a special insight into the gospels. It's not as if he made a sketch at the time the Last Supper.

[GDon]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

The Darvinci Code makes a big deal about one of the Last Supper depictions also - reading hidden meanings in it. I don't get it...... I mean why should an artist have a special insight into the gospels. It's not as if he made a sketch at the time the Last Supper.

As I understand it: Da Vinci was part of a group dating from the start of Christianity that 'knew' the real truth about what had happened after Jesus died.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by GDon

As I understand it: Da Vinci was part of a group dating from the start of Christianity that 'knew' the real truth about what had happened after Jesus died.

Yes right - Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (15 April 1452 – 2 May 1519)

[JoeMorgue]

Also if you stare at the Last Supper and cross your eyes, you'll see a sailboat.

All that talent and he still found time to become a master ninja and defeat the Shredder.

[welshdean]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Everybody is as wrong as I am" is very important to some people.

'Everybody should be the same wrong as I am.'
FTFY

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by GDon

As I understand it: Da Vinci was part of a group dating from the start of Christianity that 'knew' the real truth about what had happened after Jesus died.

It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure the secret conspiracy to hide the truth about Jesus was kind of the entire point of the story.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Ah I forgot about the seven years of C of E school school thing. Maybe we both are experts?

It was the religion classes that turned me toward atheism. God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, in particular.

Still, it helped inspire Highway 61 Revisited, so that's something in its favour...

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by welshdean

'Everybody should be the same wrong as I am.'
FTFY

No that would at least be (a very, very, very weird) kind of honest.

Hopefully this won't hijack the discussion to much (if so it can be spun off) but wrongness is more intellectually honest than wishy-washy "right and wrong don't really exist" glibness.

"God exists and have facts to prove it" when you don't actually have facts to prove it is wrong.

When you're argued into a corner (and religious folks usually do us the favor of just starting in the corner to save time) and when you have no where else to go making a bland, glib "Stupid game I don't want to play anyway" statement about how "Okay but you're just taking everything on faith / none of it really matters" statement is far, far worse.

Penn Jillette said this is way he, ironically, gets on far better with religious extremists than with religious moderates.

Even when 100% if you go "This is how the world is" you are stating what you think is a fact, you are acknowledging the concept of a fact. The whole wishy-washy "Oh there's no truth, we all just have our own viewpoint, all are valid" nonsense is A) far more intellectually harmful and B) how you talk to a child.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Still, it helped inspire Highway 61 Revisited, so that's something in its favour...

I must say I was thinking the same thing, and now I have that earworm again.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by bruto

I must say I was thinking the same thing, and now I have that earworm again.

There are many worse things than to have that as an earworm.

[theprestige]

I'm not too familiar with Anglican doctrine on this topic, and apologies if this has already been addressed, but what's the actual position? Are we talking about "sex outside of marriage is and always has been a sin, and our church doesn't marry gays, so obviously gay sex is always a sin"? Or are we talking about "experiencing sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is inherently sinful"?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not too familiar with Anglican doctrine on this topic, and apologies if this has already been addressed, but what's the actual position? Are we talking about "sex outside of marriage is and always has been a sin, and our church doesn't marry gays, so obviously gay sex is always a sin"? Or are we talking about "experiencing sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is inherently sinful"?

Yes. No. Probably. Maybe. But you'll have to ask an expert. Maybe zooterkin?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not too familiar with Anglican doctrine on this topic, and apologies if this has already been addressed, but what's the actual position? Are we talking about "sex outside of marriage is and always has been a sin, and our church doesn't marry gays, so obviously gay sex is always a sin"? Or are we talking about "experiencing sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is inherently sinful"?

Church of England’s view is sex is only sort-of OK between a wife and her husband. Any other sex is sinful, sex between same sex partners is extra naughty.

[p0lka]

I thought the church of englands view was all fluffy and let people do what they want, then someone started pontificating.

[GDon]

Originally Posted by p0lka

I thought the church of englands view was all fluffy and let people do what they want, then someone started pontificating.

That's true for the Anglican churches in the Western countries, but certainly not true for the Anglican churches in Africa. The topic of the ordination of women and recognising same-sex marriage, particularly of their clergy, will lead to a HUGE schism in the church in the next few years. (I have an 'inside source' on these matters!)

From Wiki on the Anglican Church of Nigeria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Nigeria

Quote:

The Church of Nigeria is the Anglican church in Nigeria. It is the second-largest province in the Anglican Communion, as measured by baptised membership (not by attendance), after the Church of England...

The Church of Nigeria has continuously opposed the liberal inclinations of the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada, which led to the acceptance of non-celibate homosexuality and non-celibate homosexual clergy. The church has also opposed the decisions made by the Church of England to accept celibate same-sex relationships and clergy in celibate same-sex relationships, including civil unions.

And, as a result:

Quote:

On November 12, 2005, the church entered into a "Covenant of Concordat" with the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America, two conservative groups of Anglican origin but outside the Anglican Communion, which do not recognize the Episcopal Church USA. In October and December 2006, several Episcopal churches in Virginia declared themselves out of communion with the Episcopal Church USA due to their opposition to their stance on homosexuality and joined the Church of Nigeria through the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a mission originally started by the Church of Nigeria to support Nigerian Anglicans in the United States...

The Church of Nigeria is currently in full communion with the Anglican Church in North America, founded in June 2009, launched as a conservative alternative to the liberal tendencies of the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada.[18] The first of four new American dioceses for the ACNA established by the Church of Nigeria, under the oversight of the missionary bishop of CANA, was the Missionary Diocese of the Trinity which was inaugurated on 19 August 2012 by Archbishop Nicholas Okoh.

The Anglican Church of Nigeria is starting to colonise the church in the USA!

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

So the question REALLY is: Which version of the rules for Anglican Dungeons-and-Dragons is going to be the most popular?

The Western churches use a lot of homebrew. The ones in Africa prefer the original boxed set.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Moving with the times, as ever, the Archbishop of Canterbury affirms that the position of the 1198, sorry 1998, declaration that gay sex is a sin, still holds.

This obviously has no direct bearing on pretty much all the members here, given that most are probably atheists, and few of the rest are Anglican, but it is still a disappointing statement to come out in 2022, since there are people in a position of influence who still take their guidance from the church.

Would you agree that homosexuality is unnatural conduct for humans? Nature knows of no species where creatures of the same gender form relationships of any duration that include multiple engagements in sexual acts.

Would you acknowledge that numerous studies show that gay men have a far higher rate of STDs than straight men? This is because homosexual intercourse is inherently riskier than normal intercourse.

In most cases, when such facts are raised, liberals deflect by alleging "homophobia." I don't think I've ever met a conservative who would even come close to suffering from "homophobia." Liberals should look up some of the words they use before they use them.

"Homophobia" literally means having an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuals. Personally, I've worked with many homosexuals over the years and got along just fine with them, just as I've worked with some swingers and serial adulterers and got along fine with them.

I don't think anyone should be judged solely on the basis of their sexual preferences, unless those preferences involve pedophilia, rape, or inflicting serious harm on others against their will. If it's sexual activity between two consenting adults, I really couldn't care less about it as far as how I interact with those persons. Most conservatives--not all, but most--feel the same way.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Would you agree that homosexuality is unnatural conduct for humans?

No.

Quote:

Nature knows of no species where creatures of the same gender form relationships of any duration that include multiple engagements in sexual acts.

Bollocks.

Quote:

Would you acknowledge that numerous studies show that gay men have a far higher rate of STDs than straight men? This is because homosexual intercourse is inherently riskier than normal intercourse.

Not sure what your point is, and I'm pretty sure you're wrong anyway.

Quote:

I don't think anyone should be judged solely on the basis of their sexual preferences,

Then what, exactly, was the point of your post?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

...snip...

"Homophobia" literally means having an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuals. ...snip...

...snip....

English doesn't work that way - the root words from a foreign language do not dictate what an English word means, that is done via usage by English speakers and the word homophobia means "dislike of or prejudice against gay people".

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Darat

English doesn't work that way - the root words from a foreign language do not dictate what an English word means, that is done via usage by English speakers and the word homophobia means "dislike of or prejudice against gay people".

It's odd how all the X-phobia words I can think of mean something like "an irrational fear or aversion", except when applied to identity groups that have been the subject of left wing activism. Maybe it's the same thing as we see with racism, where the word becomes so politically useful that it is continually being applied more and more broadly to the point where, like transphobia, it just means "you disagree with us politically".

Supposedly the man who coined the term intended it to imply that homophobes were suffering some kind of irrational mental condition. Pathologizing people's disagreement so it doesn't have to be addressed goes back quite a bit further, of course. Sluggish schizophrenia etc.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It's odd how all the X-phobia words I can think of mean something like "an irrational fear or aversion", except when applied to identity groups that have been the subject of left wing activism. Maybe it's the same thing as we see with racism, where the word becomes so politically useful that it is continually being applied more and more broadly to the point where, like transphobia, it just means "you disagree with us politically".

Supposedly the man who coined the term intended it to imply that homophobes were suffering some kind of irrational mental condition. Pathologizing people's disagreement so it doesn't have to be addressed goes back quite a bit further, of course. Sluggish schizophrenia etc.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by GDon

That's true for the Anglican churches in the Western countries, but certainly not true for the Anglican churches in Africa....

Agreed.

While the Church of England in England has re-framed itself as a cosy 'everyone's-welcome-let's-all-be-friends-and-have-cup-of-tea-we're-all-talking-about-the-same-God-when-it-comes-down-to-it-and-even-if-you-don't-beĺieve-I-can-rely-on-you-for-a-donation-towards-the-church-roof-fund-can't-I-because-it's-historical-and-we-have-no-money-or-influence-at-all-honestly' version of Christianity, the satellite Churches that their forebears set up during Britain's imperial era (that now form the majority of the Anglican Communion) seem to have largely retained the more judgemental, Victorian attitudes of their founders.

I think it is only a matter of time before many of these stricter, more authoritarian, more traditional Anglican churches reject the authority of what they may come to see as a weak and degenerate Lambeth, that panders to the secular powers to keep a seat at the table.

Should be fun . After all, what's Christianity without a schism?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, Jesus never said that. Paul did. 1 Cor 7-8.

And then, as Christians were dying out without Jesus returning real soon as Paul had assured them he would, someone had to forge a "newly discovered" letter from the since dead Paul saying it was actually OK to do the do.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not too familiar with Anglican doctrine on this topic, and apologies if this has already been addressed, but what's the actual position? Are we talking about "sex outside of marriage is and always has been a sin, and our church doesn't marry gays, so obviously gay sex is always a sin"? Or are we talking about "experiencing sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is inherently sinful"?

See post 2.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Would you agree that homosexuality is unnatural conduct for humans?

How can anything that happens in nature be unnatural? What is natural, Mike?

Quote:

Nature mikegriffith1 knows of no species where creatures of the same gender form relationships of any duration that include multiple engagements in sexual acts.

Fixed it for you.

Quote:

Would you acknowledge that numerous studies show that gay men have a far higher rate of STDs than straight men? This is because homosexual intercourse is inherently riskier than normal intercourse.

Citations? I realize that homophobes are only capable of visualizing anal sex when they think about homosexuality, but from the research I've read, homosexual male couples only engage in anal sex at about the same frequency as heterosexual couples. I mean, that's what this is about, right?

Quote:

In most cases, when such facts are raised...

I haven't seen you raise any facts, just an assertion.

Quote:

...liberals deflect by alleging "homophobia." I don't think I've ever met a conservative who would even come close to suffering from "homophobia." Liberals should look up some of the words they use before they use them.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a

[,hōməˈfōbēə]

NOUN

dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

synonyms: prejudice · partiality · partisanship · favoritism · unfairness · one-sidedness · bigotry · intolerance · racism · racialism · sexism · heterosexism · chauvinism · anti-Semitism · discrimination...

Sounds about right.

Quote:

"Homophobia" literally means having an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuals. Personally, I've worked with many homosexuals over the years and got along just fine with them.

I'll bet they didn't read any of your internet posts about homosexuality. Or maybe they didn't like you as much as you thought they did.

Quote:

I don't think anyone should be judged solely on the basis of their sexual preferences, unless those preferences involve pedophilia, rape, or inflicting serious harm on others against their will. If it's sexual activity between two consenting adults, I really couldn't care less about it as far as how I interact with those persons. Most conservatives--not all, but most--feel the same way.

Citation, please? Let's see the polling showing that most conservatives couldn't care less what consenting adults do with other consenting adults of any gender?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

How can anything that happens in nature be unnatural? What is natural, Mike?


Fixed it for you.


Citations? I realize that homophobes are only capable of visualizing anal sex when they think about homosexuality, but from the research I've read, homosexual male couples only engage in anal sex at about the same frequency as heterosexual couples. I mean, that's what this is about, right?


I haven't seen you raise any facts, just an assertion.


ho·mo·pho·bi·a

[,hōməˈfōbēə]

NOUN

dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

synonyms: prejudice · partiality · partisanship · favoritism · unfairness · one-sidedness · bigotry · intolerance · racism · racialism · sexism · heterosexism · chauvinism · anti-Semitism · discrimination...

Sounds about right.


I'll bet they didn't read any of your internet posts about homosexuality. Or maybe they didn't like you as much as you thought they did.


Citation, please? Let's see the polling showing that most conservatives couldn't care less what consenting adults do with other consenting adults of any gender?

What makes you think they could care?

[Cat Not Included]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Would you agree that homosexuality is unnatural conduct for humans? Nature knows of no species where creatures of the same gender form relationships of any duration that include multiple engagements in sexual acts.

As has been pointed out, this is flat out wrong. Many, many species have same gender couples.

On the other hand, getting around by driving in big metal boxes? Nature knows of no other species that does that. How about sitting in front of little glowing electric boxes to communicate with distant creatures? Utterly unknown outside humanity and has only showed up in under a century or so in the 300,000 odd years of human history! That's incredibly unnatural! About the only thing more unnatural is space travel, which only a few specimens of this species have ever engaged in.
So...is there something wrong with being in front of computers because its unnatural?

Quote:

Would you acknowledge that numerous studies show that gay men have a far higher rate of STDs than straight men? This is because homosexual intercourse is inherently riskier than normal intercourse.

EMTs and nurses have a higher than normal rate of STD infection than the general populace. Many Southern states have higher than average rates. And no, homosexual female-female intercourse is much less risky than female-male intercourse on any metric.
What has any of this got to do with anything though?

Quote:

In most cases, when such facts are raised, liberals deflect by alleging "homophobia." I don't think I've ever met a conservative who would even come close to suffering from "homophobia." Liberals should look up some of the words they use before they use them.

"Homophobia" literally means having an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuals. Personally, I've worked with many homosexuals over the years and got along just fine with them, just as I've worked with some swingers and serial adulterers and got along fine with them.

You've had the fortune not to meet the conservatives who've beaten up and murdered people for being gay, who've fought to pass laws to make sure they can't enjoy civil protections, who've enforced laws to make being gay illegal, and all the other fun stuff like that.

Deciding that you aren't willing to take someone's business or hire them because you are bothered by which gender they are attracted to may not be particularly extreme, but its certainly irrational.

Deciding that NO ONE ELSE should be allowed to hire someone because you are bothered by which gender they are attracted to is pretty extreme and irrational.

Deciding to beat someone to death because you are bothered by which gender they are attracted to is about as extreme and irrational as humans get.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

As has been pointed out, this is flat out wrong. Many, many species have same gender couples.

On the other hand, getting around by driving in big metal boxes? Nature knows of no other species that does that. How about sitting in front of little glowing electric boxes to communicate with distant creatures? Utterly unknown outside humanity and has only showed up in under a century or so in the 300,000 odd years of human history! That's incredibly unnatural! About the only thing more unnatural is space travel, which only a few specimens of this species have ever engaged in.
So...is there something wrong with being in front of computers because its unnatural?


EMTs and nurses have a higher than normal rate of STD infection than the general populace. Many Southern states have higher than average rates. And no, homosexual female-female intercourse is much less risky than female-male intercourse on any metric.
What has any of this got to do with anything though?


You've had the fortune not to meet the conservatives who've beaten up and murdered people for being gay, who've fought to pass laws to make sure they can't enjoy civil protections, who've enforced laws to make being gay illegal, and all the other fun stuff like that.

Deciding that you aren't willing to take someone's business or hire them because you are bothered by which gender they are attracted to may not be particularly extreme, but its certainly irrational.

Deciding that NO ONE ELSE should be allowed to hire someone because you are bothered by which gender they are attracted to is pretty extreme and irrational.

Deciding to beat someone to death because you are bothered by which gender they are attracted to is about as extreme and irrational as humans get.

One might also note, while at it, that although the word "phobia" alone generally denotes fear, as a suffix it is often and commonly and correctly used to denote not only fear, but hatred or aversion. It is quite correct to describe an aversion or hatred of homosexuals as "homophobia" without the silly excuse of saying one does not fear them.

[TragicMonkey]

The classical Greek language was more concise than modern English: the word "phobos" didn't mean only "fear", it meant irrational fear. The classically-educated persons who started coining terms with the advent of psychology knew that; the -phobia termination was adopted keeping the irrationality very much in mind. Arachnophobia isn't the fear of poisonous spiders that are capable of killing you, it's the fear of all spiders even when they're itty bitty and couldn't possibly hurt you.

Therefore I think the term "homophobia" is perfectly fitting because it is irrational: why would someone else's sexual preference matter to anybody who isn't having sex with them, or about to have sex with them, or wanting to have sex with them? There's no need to fear the gays: they're interested in each other, not you. And you can climb a tree to escape them...oh wait, that's bears. Which is a kind of gay, so it circles back in a quite magnificent logical way.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

The classical Greek language was more concise than modern English: the word "phobos" didn't mean only "fear", it meant irrational fear.

Actually, no. The Greeks were even more precise than that. Both "phobos" and "deimos" meant fear - different kinds of fear. Phobos was the panic felt during battle, and deimos was the dread felt before a battle. Today we usually take the definitions out of context and just translate them as panic and dread (or sometimes terror).

It's the definition of the English word phobia that adds the element of irrationality.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Would you agree that homosexuality is unnatural conduct for humans?

No.

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Nature knows of no species where creatures of the same gender form relationships of any duration that include multiple engagements in sexual acts.

Demonstrably untrue.

Kindly take your childishly silly bigotry elsewhere.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Would you agree that homosexuality is unnatural conduct for humans? Nature knows of no species where creatures of the same gender form relationships of any duration that include multiple engagements in sexual acts. ...snipped for brevity....

Even if it were not untrue (since homosexuality is present in various other species), until or unless you exclude us humans, if human beings engage in behavior which is not culturally taught or imposed, it's natural no matter what other species do or don't do it.

Besides, what's bad about unnatural? Marriage, democracy, literature and song are unnatural too.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by bruto

Besides, what's bad about unnatural? Marriage, democracy, literature and song are unnatural too.

You know what's really unnatural? Buildings. Big boxes that humans put on top of nature to keep nature out so that we can eat and sleep and work comfortably.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by bruto

One might also note, while at it, that although the word "phobia" alone generally denotes fear, as a suffix it is often and commonly and correctly used to denote not only fear, but hatred or aversion. It is quite correct to describe an aversion or hatred of homosexuals as "homophobia" without the silly excuse of saying one does not fear them.

I think homophobia may very often be a fear of being homosexual.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And homosexuality has been accepted, even celebrated, in other cultures and societies through history. Vide: These 15 Historical Examples Of LGBTQ Culture Around The World You Might Not Have Known About

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You know what's really unnatural? Buildings. Big boxes that humans put on top of nature to keep nature out so that we can eat and sleep and work comfortably.

And shoes. And restaurants. And don't get me started about toilets. Does a bear **** in the woods? I don't know! Are we talking ursidae or hairy men in leather chaps?

[Tassman]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Would you agree that homosexuality is unnatural conduct for humans?

Demonstrably not. Homosexuality has been recognized and accepted by every culture throughout human history.