This is amusing

Dalia Fleming of KeshetUK, a charity that works with LGBT+ Jews, says people in the Orthodox community faced “an impossible choice” between their sexual or gender identity and their religion.

“There has been a shift,” she said. “There is much more information available now, but there definitely needs to be more support for people who are LGBT+ and want to stay in the Orthodox community.”

Umm, well.

Bit like insisting you want to remain a Catholic priest after getting married*. It’s an either or really. To have come out rather does mean coming out of the community which insists that coming out is an anathema and those who do must be shunned.

*No, you can’t, although you might be able to become a priest already being married.

35 comments on “This is amusing

  1. There are a few dozen catholic priests who are married. A friend I used to work with, her dad was a Catholic priest at the local church.

    People who become Catholic priests while already married of course don’t divorce. Say transfer from being Anglican priest to Catholic priest – you remain a priest, you remain married, just the teaching and the rituals change.

    The Jewish community has in some ways a worse time than the Christian community regarding gays. Most Christians at least don’t want to live by the book of Leviticus, not even the few who expect the gays to do so.

  2. “There are a few dozen catholic priests who are married. A friend I used to work with, her dad was a Catholic priest at the local church.

    People who become Catholic priests while already married of course don’t divorce. Say transfer from being Anglican priest to Catholic priest – you remain a priest, you remain married, just the teaching and the rituals change.”

    Did you read my footnote?

  3. For the Orthodox ladies feeling gender-dysphoric, there’s always the fake beard option. It seemed to work in Life of Brian.

  4. people in the Orthodox community faced “an impossible choice” between their sexual or gender identity and their religion.

    Impossible, eh?

    Have they tried maybe *not* taking penises in their bottoms though? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  5. “Bit like insisting you want to remain a Catholic priest after getting married”

    The pope always has the option of a convenient revelation from God, of course. Catholic doctrine isn’t set in stone.

    This article traces the history of the abortion policy of the Roman Catholic Church. The introductory section notes that the Church has consistently opposed abortion as evidence of sexual sin but has not always regarded it as homicide because Church teaching has never been definitive about the nature of the fetus. In addition, the prohibition of abortion has never been declared an infallible teaching. The chronology starts with a sketch of events in the first six Christian centuries when Christians sought ways to distinguish themselves from pagans who accepted contraception and abortion. During this period, Christians also decided that sexual pleasure was evil. Early Church leaders began the debate about when a fetus acquired a rational soul, and St. Augustine declared that abortion is not homicide but was a sin if it was intended to conceal fornication or adultery. During the period of 600-1500, illicit intercourse was deemed by the Irish Canons to be a greater sin than abortion, Church leaders considered a woman’s situation when judging abortion, and abortion was listed in Church canons as homicide only when the fetus was formed. St. Thomas Aquinas declared that a fetus first has a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and finally a rational soul when the body was developed. The next period, 1500-1750, found anyone who resorted to contraception or abortion subject to excommunication (1588), saw these rules relaxed in 1591, and banned abortion even for those who would be murdered because of a pregnancy (1679). From 1750 to the present, excommunication was the punishment for all abortions (1869). This punishment was extended to medical personnel in 1917, but the penalty had exceptions if the woman was young, ignorant, or operating under duress or fear. In 1930, therapeutic abortions were condemned, and, in 1965, abortion was condemned as the taking of life rather than as a sexual sin. By 1974, the right to life argument had taken hold and became part of a theory of a “seamless garment” representing a consistent ethic of life. The current Pope recognizes that the moment of ensoulment is unknown but condemns abortion in all cases (except as the unintentional byproduct of another medical procedure).

  6. “Have they tried maybe *not* taking penises in their bottoms though? ”

    If sexuality is a choice, Steve, you can demonstrate it by getting visibly turned on sucking another man’s dick. As Dan Savage puts it:

    THE CHOICER CHALLENGE: Last week, the leader of British Columbia’s Conservative Party, John Cummins, told a radio interviewer that gay people shouldn’t be covered by the BC Human Rights Act because being gay is “a conscious choice.”

    Like truthers (9/11 was an inside job!), birthers (Barack Obama was born in Kenya!), and deathers (Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living in West Hollywood!), choicers would appear to be just another group of deranged conspiracy theorists who can’t be dissuaded by science or evidence or facts. And John Cummins isn’t the only choicer out there. We have lots of choicers right here in the United States (Tony Perkins, Rick Santorum, “Stephen Colbert,” et al.).

    But what if the choicers are right? What if being gay is something people consciously choose? Gee, if only there were a way for choicers to prove that they’re right and everyone else is wrong… actually, there is a way for choicers to prove that they’re right!

    I hereby publicly invite—I publicly challenge—John Cummins to prove that being gay is a choice by choosing it himself.

    Suck my dick, John.

    I’m completely serious about this, John. You’re not my type—you’re about as far from my type as a human being without a vagina gets—but I have just as much interest as you do in seeing this gay-is-a-choice argument resolved once and for all. You name the time and the place, John, and I’ll show up with my dick and a camera crew. Then you can show the world how it’s done. You can demonstrate how this “conscious choice” is made. You can flip the switch, John, make the choice, then sink to your bony old knees and suck my dick. And after you’ve swallowed my load, John, we’ll upload the video to the internet and you’ll be a hero to other choicers everywhere.

    It’s time to put your mouth where your mouth is, John. If being gay is a choice, choose it. Show us how it’s done.

    Suck my dick.

  7. Steve just doesn’t fancy you, Matthew.

    Back to the Jews v Gays intersectionality prizefight, the latter’s goal is for the court to rule in their favour, just as with gays in the armed services. Getting there means first building up public support for a few years. Expect to see more articles on this subject, even though it concerns a tiny minority of a tiny minority.

  8. Amusing your quote there, MatthewL. Because it proves conclusively that homosexuality is choice.
    There’s plenty of straight guys choose, of their own will, to suck dick. Every day. There’ll be straight guys sucking them as I write. Even taking it up the poop-chute. They’re bi-sexual. And no-one has ever said bi-sexuality is anything other than choice. Even bi-sexuals.
    So by the same metric you choose, homosexual men choose to be homosexual. By choosing not to fuck women. In either orifice. Or dine at the Y. It’s not as if they’re not physically equipped to do so, is it? Purely a matter of choice.

  9. Matthew L,

    To borrow (and adapt) a phrase from the aforementioned Life of Brian, “They’re making it up as they go along!”

    -“The current Pope recognizes that the moment of ensoulment is unknown but condemns abortion in all cases

    The egg can split into two, creating twins, up to 10 days after conception. It therefore follows that “ensoulment” doesn’t happen in that period. Therefore the morning-after pill is theologically sound.

  10. How many orthodox Jews are there in the country? And what proportion are affected?
    Really scraping the barrel for victims here.

  11. Sexual orientation might not be a choice, but shagging is (unless you’re very unlucky).

    The Catholic church says blokes shagging blokes is wrong, so if you if you are serious about being a Catholic, give up the gay sex. Or give up the religion. There is your choice. Don’t join the club and then try to change the rules.

    Otherwise it’s like joining a football club but insisting on picking up the ball and running with it.

  12. @anon
    Tim was being a bit hazy when he talks about “Catholic priests” He means Roman Catholic. Ukrainians are generally Orthodox. But the Orthodox church would claim to be catholic. For that matter, the Church of England’s catholic. Catholic means “universal” and they all reckon they’re universal something.

  13. “@MC

    Don’t join the club and then try to change the rules.”

    +1

    the Left are adept at insisting that the rules are changed so that they can join a particular club. Once they join, they change the rules some more and kick out the original members. Then they squabble among themselves and the club splits into a hundred different sub-groups who all hate each other.

  14. Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are quite relaxed about who does what to who.

    It’s a growing religion, showing the way to go.

  15. The Eastern Catholic church, who are RC, can be married and priests. They are only a very small part of the RC, but are RC. I will put a link later.

  16. Matthew – of course sex is a choice, otherwise we’d have no grounds to criminalise rape or child molestation.

    Gay men don’t *accidentally* fall on hundreds of anonymous penises in public toilet incidents every year.

    Britain’s most popular Rocket Man and his husband aren’t being physically forced to admit other men to their marital bed in some sort of homosexual conga line and then get High Court super-injunctions to stop people mentioning it.

    Human beings aren’t animals, we always have a choice when it comes to non-reflex actions.

    And this is what’s ultimately most philosophically evil about odd sex activists – they deny the humanity of gays by denying their agency. They turn the sexual act into a squicky idol that’s the foundation of their entire identity.

    The (religiously serious) Jews and Catholics, otoh, believe people are more than mere animals.

  17. I’ve had a few people ask me ‘when did you decide you were gay?’.

    My answer is always the same: ‘The same day I decided I have blue eyes’.

    Now, back to the internet to look for some hot, big-titted pussy I can attempt to squeeze my bafflingly flaccid member into. I *will* overcome this life-long misapprehension I’ve had.

  18. Anon said:
    “Can’t Catholic priests, in the Ukraine get married? I can’t remember the details now.”

    See Tim’s footnote. The Ukrainian Catholic Church does have married priests, but it does not allow priests to marry. In other words, if they want to marry, they have to marry before they are ordained, they cannot do so afterwards.

    Monastic priests cannot be married. Nor can bishops, who in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are generally chosen from the monastic priests.

    The same is true of most of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, but not all (the Coptic Catholic Church in Egypt I think doesn’t). There are about a couple of dozen Eastern Rite Churches that are in communion with Rome; some are tiny (a few thousand people), but I think the Ukrainians have a few million.

    There are also similar rules for ex-Anglicans, who are allowed to become Catholic priests even if they are married (but, again, cannot marry once they have been ordained in the Catholic Church).

    To bring it up to date, the rule used to be that married priests were only allowed in the original territory of the Church, so Ukrainian Catholic priests in the Ukraine could be married, but not the ones elsewhere serving the Ukrainian diaspora (they were at one point very strict on this in the USA, where they had a lot of Eastern European exiles; it even led to a couple of schisms). However that restriction was abolished within the last few years.

  19. @Steve. You’re confusing having sex with sexual attraction (or orientation, whatever you want to call it). The attraction part *is* innate, God knows where it comes from, I’ve got no fucking idea. We just don’t know. But anybody sticking their old boy in anyone (or anything) is then making a choice. You’re right there.

    So are you saying that the attraction is a choice (and therefore in your eyes wrong)?

    By the way, I’m a bit unusual as a poove in that I’m pretty rightish-wing on most things. I’m 100% with you on your posts on other subjects on here. But gayishness isn’t all about cocks in bums or public loos. On this subject you perhaps need to get out more. When I say ‘out’, I mean out-out, more in the Mickey Flanagan way, not closets (obviously!)

  20. Lockers – I don’t think sexual attraction is a choice, but sexual actions certainly are.

    Hence the (dishonest) complaint about Jews (or Catholics, or whatever) forcing people into an “impossible choice”. It’s not impossible, and they’re not forcing anyone to do anything.

    But gayishness isn’t all about cocks in bums or public loos.

    True, but:

    * Rhetoric, and
    * You’ll note Dan Savage’s rhetorical advice to suck his dick – no point countering rhetoric with dialectic

    As for whether bum sex is wrong is some cosmic sense, I honestly dunno, but I suspect that countless thousands of years of human experience with sexuality led to time-tested religious rules and restraints for good reasons, and not just because our ancestors were sex-hating bigots.

    My theory is that human sexuality is potentially the most destructive force in society, and the effects of the sexual revolution are worse than even the most apocalyptic warnings of 1950’s Christian squares, and we still haven’t seen how bad it’s going to get.

    So we’ve gone from a stable situation where most people could reasonably expect to be married with children by the age of 25, to a deeply unstable sociosexual landscape where promiscuity, STD’s, inceldom, gender confusion, bastardy, abortion, ethnic gang rape etc. etc. are the new normal.

    If it’s true that “by their fruits shall ye know them”, a society that no longer cares to demographically replenish itself and which refuses to protect its most vulnerable members is like a rotting tree.

    I see the gay advocacy movement (we’ve gone way beyond sensible appeals to not be horrible to gays) as just one facet of the sexual revolution Rubik’s Dildo. Modern sexual mores are based on a Crowleyan “do what thou wilt”, and put sex acts at the centre of human identity. To me, this seems to be a con, trading away something greater and more sustaining in exchange for cheap ejaculation.

    That’s probably clear as mud, so forgive my poor penmanship. The way we, in early 21st century Western society, talk and think about sex seems to me to be painfully fucking glib, with retarded slogans (Love Is Love!) taking the place of critical thought, and a surfeit of unwarranted self-righteous self-congratulation about how much wiser we are than the people who gave us Western civilisation for our inheritance.

    The philpsopher-rapper Andre 3000 once said:

    Thank God for Mom and Dad
    For sticking to together
    Like we don’t know how

    Ain’t that the truth?

  21. “As for whether bum sex is wrong is some cosmic sense, I honestly dunno, but I suspect that countless thousands of years of human experience with sexuality led to time-tested religious rules and restraints for good reasons, and not just because our ancestors were sex-hating bigots.”

    I suspect it’s because humans have always been prodnosed authoritarians who like banning stuff other people do.

    You know the people you see today who try to ban smoking, and drinking, and eating ‘too much’ sugar? Who seek to regulate the internet, ban pornography and offensive language? Who want to outlaw ‘chemicals’ and plastic bags and CO2 emissions? The people in the EU who write thousands of pages of regulations on what you are and are not allowed to sell?

    That’s who made those rules up.

    There have always been humans like that, right back into prehistory. They are humanity’s natural rulers. Banning/regulating everything is the tried and tested system that history handed down to us. The Book of Leviticus is the Bronze Age equivalent of the EU’s books of regulations on straightening your banana, and its wisdom is the same as the wisdom of the EU commissars. They, too, always have good reasons for their rules – it’s always for our own good, for the good of society, or nowadays for the good of the planet and that the land may be not defiled (Lev. 18:27-28).

    Can you imagine the chaos and social disintegration that would ensue if we didn’t have the EU’s/Bible’s regulations to keep us on the straight and narrow?!

    “My theory is that the economic impact of trade is potentially the most destructive force in society, and the effects of the free market are worse than even the most apocalyptic warnings of the Remoaner’s Project Fear, and we still haven’t seen how bad it’s going to get.”

    See how similar that sounds? Rules have always been created to save us from ourselves! Obey, or face the most dire consequences imaginable!

    😉

    “That’s probably clear as mud, so forgive my poor penmanship.”

    I thought it was very clear, and there’s nothing at all wrong with your penmanship!

    “Ain’t that the truth?”

    Yes, it is. The question is, though: should we choose to stick together? Or should we be made to, for our own good?

  22. I regard myself as an Orthodox Stevist, however I can’t totally agree with the teaching above. It’s an impossible situation.

    “As for whether bum sex is wrong is some cosmic sense, I honestly dunno, but I suspect that countless thousands of years of human experience with sexuality led to time-tested religious rules and restraints for good reasons”

    Gay sex is just a sub-set of sex outside marriage, hence the Christian ban.

    Gay men can be ridiculously promiscuous, cos that’s what men are like.

    There’s a risk of disease, but no dependent children are involved. I’m pretty sure modern heterosexual promiscuity is more damaging.

    Those canny Victorians were maybe onto something with public schools.

  23. “The Book of Leviticus is the Bronze Age equivalent of the EU’s books of regulations on straightening your banana, and its wisdom is the same as the wisdom of the EU commissars.”
    Except the wisdom of the EU commissars will be old next year & irrelevant the year after. Yes some of these proscriptions & exhortations have been around a very long time. That they’ve survived a very long time might actually be telling us something. Like the people who didn’t listen to them ain’t around any more.

  24. How late in the day was it before the not marrying became near-universal for Roman Catholic priests? 16th century, maybe? Anyone know?

    I don’t mean the date for the first edicts: I mean a date, however approximate, when they were obeyed.

  25. “That they’ve survived a very long time might actually be telling us something. Like the people who didn’t listen to them ain’t around any more.”

    Oh, of course! Absolutely!

    6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

    7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

    8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

    9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

    10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

    11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

    12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

    13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

    14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

    15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

    16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

    17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

    18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    Those Eurocrats could take a few lessons from that Moses, eh? 🙂

    The Church has changed the rules a few times since then, of course. Rules can be changed, as circumstances change.

  26. Lockers,
    The attraction part *is* innate

    I’m sexually attracted to squirrels. That’s not a problem. Acting on it would be a problem. Encouraging kids into thinking that human-squirrel relationships are just as good as any other kind would be very wrong.

  27. I’m sexually attracted to squirrels. That’s not a problem.

    Yes it is. Find another site for your perversion(s).

    This is a site for people who are attracted to people in squirrel suits.

  28. @bloke in spain, December 9, 2018 at 10:41 am

    +1

    CoE Book of Common Prayer – The Apostles’ Creed:

    …I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting….

    In some instances Tim et al should use RC.

  29. Dearieme: “How late in the day was it before the not marrying became near-universal for Roman Catholic priests? 16th century, maybe? Anyone know?”

    If I remember correctly from anglo-saxon chronicles and up, the complaining about Priests Not being Celibate began roughly in the 9th/10thC, first real edicts and the official on-pain-of-excommunication enforcement was roughly 12th/13th C, with mentions bleeding out at the end of the 15th C.
    (depends a bit on where in europe you look)

    The local pastor getting Too Friendly with the Housekeeper? Up to this day… Unfortunately less frequent than the other type of pastor who forces young boys against their will…

    It’s typical of the bigotry inherent in the RC church that getting too cosy with a willing (female) partner is deemed more heretical than forcing your sexual frustration upon the helpless.
    I can happily live with Father Dominic having an discreet Understanding Relationship with mmme Upthehill, the other bit makes my blood boil.

  30. (i) Thanks, Grikath.

    (ii) “The Book of Leviticus is the Bronze Age equivalent of” … though probably written many centuries after the Bronze Age.

    WKPD: “The first five books – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, book of Numbers and Deuteronomy – reached their present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC), and their authors were the elite of exilic returnees who controlled the Temple at that time.”

  31. “though probably written many centuries after the Bronze Age.”

    Just as the Christian Bible only reached its present form many centuries after Jesus, yes? They’re both compiled from earlier sources.

    But if you want to call it ‘Iron Age’ instead, feel free.

  32. @ dearieme
    Ridiculous! You should say “edited” many years after the Bronze Age. The Massoretic text was a post-exilic attempt to provide the best possible interpretation of historic writings that had suffered from copying errors by comparing the then current alternative scripts. Although Wikipedia is not Gospel Truth, even it is not saying that Leviticus was written after the Bronze Age. If you compare the battles fought by Jonathan then David and his elite warriors 1 Samuel, they look a lot more like Bronze Age fights than Iron Age ones.
    @ NiV
    The separation of the Bible into the CoE accepted books and the Apocalypse was many centuries after Jesus but not the contents of each book. May I suggest that that smear belongs in the Grauniad?

  33. “@ NiV The separation of the Bible into the CoE accepted books and the Apocalypse was many centuries after Jesus but not the contents of each book.”

    Wasn’t that precisely my point, re Leviticus?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.