Evangelical extremist?

[Aruntraveller]

Or is it just the queers again?

Jut about covers it Shaker.

I do find this relentless, mindless, mildly irritating queer bashing wearisome.

Do people really not have bigger things to worry about other than the fact that two people in love can get married regardless of their gender.

It is a point I have made many times before but its almost like they enjoy flaunting their heterosexual superiority to one and all.

Must have sad, small, meaningless lives is all I can think.

[floo]

Jut about covers it Shaker.

I do find this relentless, mindless, mildly irritating queer bashing wearisome.

Do people really not have bigger things to worry about other than the fact that two people in love can get married regardless of their gender.

It is a point I have made many times before but its almost like they enjoy flaunting their heterosexual superiority to one and all.

Must have sad, small, meaningless lives is all I can think.

As I have said a few times before, I wonder how Christian anti-gay bigots would react if they discovered Jesus had been gay and in a sexual relationship with the disciple whom he loved?

[Walter]

As I have said a few times before, I wonder how Christian anti-gay bigots would react if they discovered Jesus had been gay and in a sexual relationship with the disciple whom he loved?

Floo, the flaming lid would come off,

and what immense fun we could enjoy watching the ensuing carnage. Brilliant.

[Spud]

Christians who are homosexual can manage their sexuality in whatever way suits (with the consenting adults caveat); that is surely a personal matter for them and I doubt many of us have a problem with that. Christianity, however, isn't the arbiter of legal marriage and neither is 'scripture' binding on society at large.

That organised Christianity does have a role in legal marriage but in enacting this role they seek to discriminate against just some of those who are entitled to legally marry is, in my view, a problem. That they get away with doing so at all is an anachronism in this day and age.

Substitute 'have to discriminate' for 'seek to discriminate' and you shouldn't have a problem. That's why the government was able to exempt religious organizations from ssm, surely?

[Nearly Sane]

Substitute 'have to discriminate' for 'seek to discriminate' and you shouldn't have a problem. That's why the government was able to exempt religious organizations from ssm, surely?

so because ISIS think they have to kill homosexuals, they should be allowed to?

[Gordon]

Substitute 'have to discriminate' for 'seek to discriminate' and you shouldn't have a problem.

Yet I still do: the difference in these terms doesn't change the intent, which is to effect a means to discriminate. Whether these Christian organisations feel they 'have' to discriminate, or would 'seek' to, surely means they intend to exclude a subset of those entitled to legally marry from using their services on the basis of sexual orientation.

No matter how you try to wriggle, Spud, to pretend the stance of these organisations/clerics isn't discriminatory is head in the sand stuff.
 

That's why the government was able to exempt religious organizations from ssm, surely?

I suspect that the shameful ring-fencing of the CofE is politics pure and simple given the privileged status of the CofE: after all we can't have the Queen signing-off progressive legislation that contradicts the same religious organisation she is linked to. Clearly our lords and masters think giving the CofE a free pass to discriminate is fine in these circumstance - it would be funny if it wasn't shameful!

[Spud]

I think the point is that a person, for example a priest, should be allowed to continue to do good (eg marry heterosexual couples) but because of the principle of freedom of conscience, be allowed to abstain from what he believes is wrong, eg marry homosexuals.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the point is that a person, for example a priest, should be allowed to continue to do good (eg marry heterosexual couples) but because of the principle of freedom of conscience, be allowed to abstain from what he believes is wrong, eg marry homosexuals.

And ISIS thinks killing homosexuals is a good thing, so you seem to think they should be allowed to do it.

[Gordon]

I think the point is that a person, for example a priest, should be allowed to continue to do good (eg marry heterosexual couples) but because of the principle of freedom of conscience, be allowed to abstain from what he believes is wrong, eg marry homosexuals.

Super - then I think it wrong that I should pay income tax: would that be o.k provided I agree to abide by the speed limits when driving/motorcycling?

[Spud]

Super - then I think it wrong that I should pay income tax: would that be o.k provided I agree to abide by the speed limits when driving/motorcycling?

Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.

And ISIS thinks killing homosexuals is a good thing, so you seem to think they should be allowed to do it.

No because that would harm them and deny them the right to change their behaviour.

Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.

There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.

[wigginhall]

Good grief, Spud, do you realize how omnipotent you sound?  'There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex' - says who?   I suppose this is the traditional arrogance of various churches, that we speak the truth, and everyone else should obey.  Fortunately, those days have gone.

[Nearly Sane]

Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.

No because that would harm them and deny them the right to change their behaviour.

Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.

There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.

So it isn't about conscience at all. It"s about conforming to your standards and your standards alone. The entire conscience arguments that you have put forward, you have just declared worthless. Thank you for shooting down your own position.

[Nearly Sane]

Spud, just while we are at it, you do know that marriage isn't a sex licence?

[floo]

Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.

No because that would harm them and deny them the right to change their behaviour.

Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.

There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.

Of all the crazy statements I have ever heard, that must be one of the craziest ones!   

[Walter]

Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.

No because that would harm them and deny them the right to change their behaviour.

Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.

There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.

Spud,
you have some very QUEER ideas if I may say so?

[Hope]

Super - then I think it wrong that I should pay income tax: would that be o.k provided I agree to abide by the speed limits when driving/motorcycling?

The problem with that suggestion is that your income tax goes to help pay for services that you use on a daily basis.  If you're happy not to have your rubbish collected on a regular basis, because the council tax doesn't cover all the costs; if you're happy that you pay for your health care, your children's education, maintenance of the roads, the defence of your family in the case of war, ... directly out of your own pocket.

[Hope]

Spud, just while we are at it, you do know that marriage isn't a sex licence?

Well, one can argue that it 1) is and 2) should be.  Arguably a religious marriage exists partly based on that idea.

[Walter]

Well, one can argue that it 1) is and 2) should be.  Arguably a religious marriage exists partly based on that idea.

Hope
 in the distant past when humans numbered only in the low thousands , in the glorious days before minds were corrupted by religion, do you think male and female looked for another human to marry them before rutting in a cave somewhere. If so ,you would not be here to pass judgment.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, one can argue that it 1) is and 2) should be.  Arguably a religious marriage exists partly based on that idea.

you would be wrong on 1, and we are talking about state marriage.

[Gordon]

Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.

...and we support SSM since it removed prejudice and discrimination.

Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.

People marry because they love each other, Spud: and 'love' isn't a synonym for 'sex'.

There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.

This is a fallacious argument from authority, Spud, with the added oddity that you seem to think your position is authoritative: you need to accept Spud that both legislation (in the parts of the UK we both live in) and common decency have left you behind.   

[Gordon]

The problem with that suggestion is that your income tax goes to help pay for services that you use on a daily basis.  If you're happy not to have your rubbish collected on a regular basis, because the council tax doesn't cover all the costs; if you're happy that you pay for your health care, your children's education, maintenance of the roads, the defence of your family in the case of war, ... directly out of your own pocket.

Don't be silly - I'd have thought you'd have realised, had you read the post from Spud I was replying to (which I quoted in #258), that I was obviously being sarcastic.

Your concrete thinking does seem boundless.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem with that suggestion is that your income tax goes to help pay for services that you use on a daily basis.  If you're happy not to have your rubbish collected on a regular basis, because the council tax doesn't cover all the costs; if you're happy that you pay for your health care, your children's education, maintenance of the roads, the defence of your family in the case of war, ... directly out of your own pocket.

whoosh

[Walter]

whoosh

I've decided to give Hope a bit of leeway from now on, there is something in his posts I recognise.
 not sure if I should have said that but it was meant with concern.

[Spud]

So it isn't about conscience at all. It"s about conforming to your standards and your standards alone. The entire conscience arguments that you have put forward, you have just declared worthless. Thank you for shooting down your own position.

So supposing the right thing is for clergy to opt out of state marriage. What about other situations such as when someone in a same sex marriage applies for a position as a minister? How could the church avoid discriminating (by refusing to employ them) without opting out of employing people as ministers altogether?

[Gordon]

How could the church avoid discriminating (by refusing to employ them) without opting out of employing people as ministers altogether?

Easy peasy: just stop the homophobic discrimination and these problems will go away.