Evangelical extremist?

[Hope]

Only when those who profess to be Christian try to marry outside the NT definition of marriafge , and try to do so in a Christian setting, should we - rightly - protest.

Quite agree, Jim

You might enjoy a book I'm reading - 'Archbishop' by Michele Guinness.  I won't give the story away, but no doubt others will seek it out.

[Gordon]

However, the fact that marriage has - throughout history and across cultures - been between a man and a woman would, in my view, have a strong influence on how we ought to regard it.

So what?

Things change, and history is littered with change, and advocating and enabling change via democratic means is surely a feature of any progressive society.
 

I accept that there has been recognition of homosexual relationships over history and culture, but never in any formal manner such as marriage until the last 20 or so years.

Again, so what?

The social climate in relation to homosexuality has changed in the culture you and I both live in: you don't have to personally approve of SSM to recognise that removing legal discrimination in respect of secular marriage now has both social and democratic support, hence the legislative change: here in the UK we don't live in a theocracy.

[Hope]

So what?

Things change, and history is littered with change, and advocating and enabling change via democratic means is surely a feature of any progressive society.

And some of the changes that this particular progressive society has made would be regarded as regressive by many ordinary people - the treatment of the elderly, the poor, the young, ... .  I'm afraid that I don't actually regard modern Britain as a particularly democratic, let alone progressive society.
 

The social climate in relation to homosexuality has changed in the culture you and I both live in: you don't have to personally approve of SSM to recognise that removing legal discrimination in respect of secular marriage now has both social and democratic support, hence the legislative change: here in the UK we don't live in a theocracy.

I would agree that the "social climate in relation to homosexuality" (and a number of other behaviours) has changed - but in my view it has done so in much the same way that the American electorate's 'social climate' has changed - as a result of untruths and bullying becoming the norm.

[Gordon]

And some of the changes that this particular progressive society has made would be regarded as regressive by many ordinary people - the treatment of the elderly, the poor, the young, ... .  I'm afraid that I don't actually regard modern Britain as a particularly democratic, let alone progressive society.

I think you are confusing problems in the practical delivery of interventions, such as healthcare, with what society is seeking to do: comparing now with the pre-1948 situation highlights what I'd say is social progress even if it isn't yet perfect, and of course in democratic terms you have regular opportunities to influence who is involved in governance arrangements.

I find it harder to accept your doubts on social progress when, as far as I can see, you'd prefer that we still discriminated against homosexual people.   

I would agree that the "social climate in relation to homosexuality" (and a number of other behaviours) has changed - but in my view it has done so in much the same way that the American electorate's 'social climate' has changed - as a result of untruths and bullying becoming the norm.

This is yet another of your odd attempts at a tu quoque form of argument by equating your distaste of SSM with claimed negatives involving politics elsewhere, and as such it is fallacious and has no merit. I'd also say that your comparison of what has happened in the UK (ex. NI) in respect of removing discrimination with 'untruths and bullying' elsewhere is both perverse and offensive, though I doubt you understand why.

The train has left the station, and you have been left behind.

[Hope]

I think you are confusing problems in the practical delivery of interventions, such as healthcare, with what society is seeking to do: comparing now with the pre-1948 situation highlights what I'd say is social progress even if it isn't yet perfect, and of course in democratic terms you have regular opportunities to influence who is involved in governance arrangements.

Sorry, Gordon, but the reason the interventions are problematic is precisely because of the social attitude that currently prevails.  Our society is far more concerned with self-satisfaction and self-aggrandisement than it was 50+ years ago, and the less able, the less well-off and the less popular are increasingly becoming sidelined.  Think of all the online bullying that takes place; the online crime which has meant that crime figures in the relevant overall categories have rocketed; the dismissive attitude towards the poor, disposed and disenfranchised that rune rampant in the halls of local authorities and central government (and has done for over a quarter of a century); even, in a way, the Brexit vote which was based on less than subtle untruths and misrepresentations.

I find it harder to accept your doubts on social progress when, as far as I can see, you'd prefer that we still discriminated against homosexual people.

Whilst I would agree that society has progressed in terms of its attitude to homosexuality - I would suggest that it has gone backwards in its attitude to homosexual relationships; in fact, relationships in general, over the last 40-odd years.  . 

This is yet another of your odd attempts at a tu quoque form of argument by equating your distaste of SSM with claimed negatives involving politics elsewhere, and as such it is fallacious and has no merit. I'd also say that your comparison of what has happened in the UK (ex. NI) in respect of removing discrimination with 'untruths and bullying' elsewhere is both perverse and offensive, though I doubt you understand why.

I have been opposing injustice and other political issues - both domestic and international - for far longer than I've been opposing SSM, Gordon.  I believe that legalising SSM was a retrogressive step in the bigger picture, as it fundamentally changes the relational structure of society and will, in the long run, be seen to have been damaging to society as a whole.  I realise that you believe differently, but I haven't seen anything, research-wise, to suggest that the long-term outlook will follow your pattern.

The train has left the station, and you have been left behind.

Sometimes, a train leaves the station and people get left behind, but they still get to the destination before that train does.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm afraid that I don't actually regard modern Britain as a particularly democratic, let alone progressive society.

And you achieve that progressive and democratic society by denying a group of people (gay in this case) of equal rights within society?

Do you even read what you type?

[Gordon]

Sorry, Gordon, but the reason the interventions are problematic is precisely because of the social attitude that currently prevails.

You'll need to explain how social attitudes are critical in terms of how general services are delivered: ethos is certainly an aspect but so are employment, resources, identifying priorities and how politics functions - but even so I'm struggling to see that removing discrimination is a bad thing.

 

Our society is far more concerned with self-satisfaction and self-aggrandisement than it was 50+ years ago, and the less able, the less well-off and the less popular are increasingly becoming sidelined.

That sounds like a sweeping generalisation supplemented by your opinion: nobody claims everything is perfect, but even if so that isn't a reason to hold back on doing what can be done to improve matters.

Think of all the online bullying that takes place; the online crime which has meant that crime figures in the relevant overall categories have rocketed; the dismissive attitude towards the poor, disposed and disenfranchised that rune rampant in the halls of local authorities and central government (and has done for over a quarter of a century); even, in a way, the Brexit vote which was based on less than subtle untruths and misrepresentations.

As I said, things aren't perfect but in the context of SSM so what? That some good stuff happens is surely better than no good stuff happening.

Whilst I would agree that society has progressed in terms of its attitude to homosexuality - I would suggest that it has gone backwards in its attitude to homosexual relationships; in fact, relationships in general, over the last 40-odd years.

That would be your opinion, based no doubt on what you think your faith determines, but presumably you've noticed that not all in UK society regard Christianity are being relevant or authoritative.   
 

I have been opposing injustice and other political issues - both domestic and international - for far longer than I've been opposing SSM, Gordon.

Super, yet it seems you'd prefer it if we still discriminated against homosexual people who want to marry each other.

I believe that legalising SSM was a retrogressive step in the bigger picture, as it fundamentally changes the relational structure of society and will, in the long run, be seen to have been damaging to society as a whole.

So you do, but fortunately your views aren't binding on the rest of us.

  I realise that you believe differently, but I haven't seen anything, research-wise, to suggest that the long-term outlook will follow your pattern.

I don't have a 'long-term outlook' or 'pattern' since the best I can do is make informed assumptions regarding the future, where recent events confirm the folly of being unduly certain of anything. I have no idea what changes might occur in what remains of my lifetime, be they social, political or just events, that will require me to review my 'outlook'. 

Sometimes, a train leaves the station and people get left behind, but they still get to the destination before that train does.

Your attempt at a witty riposte doesn't even get you to the end of the platform.

[floo]

Whilst I would agree that society has progressed in terms of its attitude to homosexuality - I would suggest that it has gone backwards in its attitude to homosexual relationships; in fact, relationships in general, over the last 40-odd years.  . 


What does that statement mean?

[Aruntraveller]

Whilst I would agree that society has progressed in terms of its attitude to homosexuality - I would suggest that it has gone backwards in its attitude to homosexual relationships; in fact, relationships in general, over the last 40-odd years.  . 


What does that statement mean?

Oh it's his usual twisty-turny language to make himself think that he is being clever. It will all boil down to the equivalent of hate the sin, love the sinner. He does after all have many gay friends. 

[floo]

Oh it's his usual twisty-turny language to make himself think that he is being clever. It will all boil down to the equivalent of hate the sin, love the sinner. He does after all have many gay friends. 

Apart from the bigotry involved the phrase, 'hate the sin, but love the sinner', is so very patronising! 

[Spud]

At yes, your god and his penchant for killing children.

'Penchant' implies a taste for doing something, so you have the wrong word there.

[Nearly Sane]

'Penchant' implies a taste for doing something, so you have the wrong word there.

I chose the word because of what it means. It's the right word for an habitual child killer.

[Spud]

Jim does indeed point out that your position fits with Christian thinking, although your adding the epithet 'common sense' is another matter entirely since I don't think that it is 'common sense' to discriminate.

There's nothing wrong with giving something a name. In this case the thing we want to name is the husband-wife contract to remain faithful; this is unique because it can aid bringing up their own children, and so needs its own name. If you want to divorce this child-rearing aspect of marriage from the relationship aspect, as with a gay couple whose gametes are incompatible, you need a separate word for a contract between them.

[Nearly Sane]

There's nothing wrong with giving something a name. In this case the thing we want to name is the husband-wife contract to remain faithful; this is unique because it can aid bringing up their own children, and so needs its own name. If you want to divorce this child-rearing aspect of marriage from the relationship aspect, as with a gay couple whose gametes are incompatible, you need a separate word for a contract between them.

less of the 'we' here.

[wigginhall]

The omnipotent Christian 'we'.   It's the same old arrogance - 'you need a separate word ...'   Hang on, no, there is no need for a separate word, since Parliament has already given us one, same sex marriage, or colloquially, equal marriage.   If bigots want to use their own word, OK.

[Gordon]

There's nothing wrong with giving something a name. In this case the thing we want to name is the husband-wife contract to remain faithful; this is unique because it can aid bringing up their own children, and so needs its own name.

I think you mean you, Spud: not 'we' since you don't speak for me, and even if you'd rather like the sole rights to the term 'marriage' for Christianity you aren't in that position, and nor will you be.

If you want to divorce this child-rearing aspect of marriage from the relationship aspect, as with a gay couple whose gametes are incompatible, you need a separate word for a contract between them.

Nope - 'marriage' will do just fine thanks.The term covers precisely what the relevant legislation allows, and this doesn't include prescribing the possibility of children.

The thing you aren't recognising, Spud, is that the term 'marriage' isn't defined by you or by Christian dogma (no matter how much you'd prefer that is was) and that for some of us that any attempts to limit 'marriage' to your preferred definition is advocating the return of legal discrimination.

So, within what the legislation allows, you are free to marry whomever agrees to marry you, and I think you'd be well advised to extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

[floo]

There's nothing wrong with giving something a name. In this case the thing we want to name is the husband-wife contract to remain faithful; this is unique because it can aid bringing up their own children, and so needs its own name. If you want to divorce this child-rearing aspect of marriage from the relationship aspect, as with a gay couple whose gametes are incompatible, you need a separate word for a contract between them.

Single parents and gay parents are just as capable of bringing up children as heterosexual married couples.

[Spud]

I think you mean you, Spud: not 'we' since you don't speak for me, and even if you'd rather like the sole rights to the term 'marriage' for Christianity you aren't in that position, and nor will you be.

I think the overall majority of people worldwide would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Nope - 'marriage' will do just fine thanks.The term covers precisely what the relevant legislation allows, and this doesn't include prescribing the possibility of children.

Sorry but a husband-wife relationship is not the same as a male-male or female-female relationship, so it should be described differently.

The thing you aren't recognising, Spud, is that the term 'marriage' isn't defined by you or by Christian dogma (no matter how much you'd prefer that is was) and that for some of us that any attempts to limit 'marriage' to your preferred definition is advocating the return of legal discrimination.

This argument does not work, because if you redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex you then open the door to legal discrimination against people for whom that is against their religious convictions. This denies a person their right to freedom of belief. For example, Lillian Ladele lost her job as a registrar because the change in the law meant she would have to officiate at same-sex partnership ceremonies.

So, within what the legislation allows, you are free to marry whomever agrees to marry you, and I think you'd be well advised to extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

Even if the legislation regarding 'everyone else' is discriminatory to some? 

[Sebastian Toe]

I think the overall majority of people worldwide would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I think the overall majority of people worldwide don't believe that Christianity is the one true religion.
Should we legislate to reflect that?

[Aruntraveller]

This denies a person their right to freedom of belief.

It does no such thing. It does not allow them to discriminate based on their belief. A completely different proposition.

Odd how this issue motivates some religious people more than any other.

Anyhow I suggest we have a free for all. Many NHS staff I know are tired of treating pissed, racist, sexist, homophobic members of the public on a Friday and Saturday night - can they have an exemption from not performing their jobs on the grounds that they are decent caring human beings and shouldn't have to deal with this shit altogether.

OK it's not a religious exemption but at least it's based on real things happening rather than the wibblings of demented, bigoted minds that should have better things to do with their time and efforts.

[Brownie]

Excellent post Trent.
----------------------

Hope said: ... And some of the changes that this particular progressive society has made would be regarded as regressive by many ordinary people - the treatment of the elderly, the poor, the young, ... .  I'm afraid that I don't actually regard modern Britain as a particularly democratic, let alone progressive society.
 

Seriously?

Let's go back fifty years give or take.  I am nearly 67 so I can do that quite easily and cannot remember a fairer, kinder society - quite the opposite in fact though things were beginning to change for the better thanks to some enlightened people, reformers, who were prepared to stick their necks out and make their voices heard.   

Hope, you are seeing the past through rose-tinted specs.  I wouldn't go back to that time - when I was young, poor and helpless - for anything.

Of course nothing is perfect now, there will always be work to do, but don't tell me life was better "back in the day".   It was alright for some.

Ask those who were sick,  poor,  marginalised by society,  mixed race,  unmarried mothers,  shut away in 'special' schools for being in 'moral danger',  tenants of Rachman-type dwellings,  Educationally Sub-Normal (as those with learning difficulties were then titled),  committed to mental hospitals,  women paid less than men for doing the same work.
 
Gay people were treated in an appalling manner!

We had capital punishment in this country as recently as 1964.

Nuclear bomb tests.

I could go on and on but it's time I went to bed.

[Spud]

It does no such thing. It does not allow them to discriminate based on their belief. A completely different proposition.

Prohibiting someone from working in a certain job unless they are willing to act against their conscience is indeed denying them freedom of belief, and is denying them the right to work to support themselves.

[Nearly Sane]

Prohibiting someone from working in a certain job unless they are willing to act against their conscience is indeed denying them freedom of belief, and is denying them the right to work to support themselves.

So if I want, as a doctor,  to refuse to treat Jews I should be allowed to do so?

[Gordon]

I think the overall majority of people worldwide would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Which you can't ever know, and of course your point is irrelevant regarding how states (like the UK) determine their legislation, which in this case legally defines marriage.

Sorry but a husband-wife relationship is not the same as a male-male or female-female relationship, so it should be described differently.

In your opinion, and the opinions of some of your fellow Christians no doubt: however, your opinion isn't binding on the rest of us and was rejected by the legislatures in most parts of the UK during the recent changes to the legal definition of marriage.

This argument does not work, because if you redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex you then open the door to legal discrimination against people for whom that is against their religious convictions.

Nope - any more than legally enforceable speed-limits discriminate against those who would prefer to go faster: they are entitled to their opinion of course but not to the extent of enacting legislation to ensure the rest of us comply with their opinions when the arguments against these opinions are held to be more compelling (by the legislature). 

This denies a person their right to freedom of belief. For example, Lillian Ladele lost her job as a registrar because the change in the law meant she would have to officiate at same-sex partnership ceremonies.

Nope - she is free to comply with the law, which is the core aspect of her role. If on a personal basis she can't then she must resign from that position - her personal opinion is neither here nor there.

Even if the legislation regarding 'everyone else' is discriminatory to some? 

In this case yes, since the legislature decides legislation - that she doesn't agree doesn't discriminate against her since she is free to retain her personal opinion, just like the situation regarding compliance with traffic legislation.

[Aruntraveller]

Prohibiting someone from working in a certain job unless they are willing to act against their conscience is indeed denying them freedom of belief, and is denying them the right to work to support themselves.

Then they should get another job if their beliefs are that strong.

Listen I have to deal with people in my job that I do not wish to deal with, due to the fact that I know that if I met them on the street in certain circumstances they would beat me up  for being gay. Allow my right to act on my conscience and to not deal with these people.

I can't. I have a job to so. Do keep up. It does not stop their freedom of belief. It stops them acting on it in a discriminatory fashion.