Evangelical extremist?

[Spud]

But the person would be contradicting the teaching of his scripture.

[Spud]

The Bible would have to be re-written or banned

[Nearly Sane]

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?

Ministers are not state employees. Let's remember that the RCs don't do women priests.

[Walter]

But the person would be contradicting the teaching of his scripture.

its only a made up story ffs, get over yourself.

[Gordon]

But the person would be contradicting the teaching of his scripture.

Then perhaps the problem is the scripture.

[Nearly Sane]

The Bible would have to be re-written or banned

and we are back at you contradicting yourself and stopping ISIS from killing homosexuals! You support an interpretation of a 'holy' book as a justification then you support them.


Oh and BTW the way why would it have to be banned?

[Walter]

The Bible would have to be re-written or banned

you said it 

[Gordon]

The Bible would have to be re-written or banned

Or perhaps it should seen more as a curiosity that is undoubtedly of cultural and historic interest, but is no longer socially relevant: no need to change it or ban it, just don't take it too seriously (or expect others to).

[Hope]

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

So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own.  As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.

[Spud]

Ministers are not state employees. Let's remember that the RCs don't do women priests.

Are you saying tha the RCC should be required to do women priests?

[Spud]

and we are back at you contradicting yourself and stopping ISIS from killing homosexuals! You support an interpretation of a 'holy' book as a justification then you support them.


Oh and BTW the way why would it have to be banned?

I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion.

[Nearly Sane]

So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own.  As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.

So you want ISIS to be able to kill homosexuals, after all it's living according to their conscience. So you want to stop so called discrimination against black people,  as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course it's often one way to keep ourselves safe.


BTW how are you keeping yourself safe by your wanting to treat homosexuals unequally?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion.

in what way? I notice you ignored the logical conclusion of your position, I.e. that because conscience should be respected then ISIS should be respected. Why did you you do that! Why ignore the point in the post you quoted?

[floo]

So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own.  As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.

So racism is OK is it?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you saying tha the RCC should be required to do women priests?

No, I'm pointing out that your position was wrong because they aren"t required to 'do' women priests. What an odd and slightly disturbing word to use! But then you want ISIS to be required not to 'do in' homosexuals because mmm, you are being hypocritical in your argument.

[Gordon]

So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own. 

Not really: I just want to see an end to irrational homophobia just as much as I'd like to see an end to any form of irrational discrimination. In addition I think the sexuality of consenting adults is none of my damned business, or yours.

As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.

Tu quoque.

[Shaker]

So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own.

More like wanting to people to live as though they possess a conscience rather than lack one.

[Shaker]

So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own.  As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.

How does your desire to prevent same-sex couples from marrying keep you safe? Safe from what?

Since equal marriage is, thank goodness, a done deal, are you less safe now than before its introduction and in what way(s)?

[Walter]

Not really: I just want to see an end to irrational homophobia just as much as I'd like to see an end to any form of irrational discrimination. In addition I think the sexuality of consenting adults is none of my damned business, or yours.

Tu quoque.

id rather it was your quoque if you don't mind I have plans for mine !

[Spud]

in what way? I notice you ignored the logical conclusion of your position, I.e. that because conscience should be respected then ISIS should be respected. Why did you you do that! Why ignore the point in the post you quoted?

No, I was saying that because, as you point out, the logical conclusion of respecting conscience is that isis should be respected, therefore we should not allow freedom of conscience at all: to the extent that religious organisations which will not allow women or practicing homosexuals to be priests should be shut down or their scriptures altered/banned.

[Spud]

No, I'm pointing out that your position was wrong because they aren"t required to 'do' women priests. What an odd and slightly disturbing word to use! But then you want ISIS to be required not to 'do in' homosexuals because mmm, you are being hypocritical in your argument.

I used the word 'do' because you did.

[Spud]

No, I was saying that because, as you point out, the logical conclusion of respecting conscience is that isis should be respected, therefore we should not allow freedom of conscience at all: to the extent that religious organisations which will not allow women or practicing homosexuals to be priests should be shut down or their scriptures altered/banned.

In other words, there has to be some freedom of conscience. I'd say that this ought to be judged by whether harm is caused to a person as a result of being discriminated against. Since there are other ways for homosexuals to marry, such as through a civil registrar, and also other options available to them, such as civil partnerships or celibacy, it is not harmful to them if they are declined by a religious organisation.

[Nearly Sane]

I used the word 'do' because you did.

  fairy 'nuff. My bad? Any reason for again ignitprung the re
St of my post as you did previously? Why are you ignoring that you are not arguing consistently despite this being pointed out multiple times?

[Nearly Sane]

In other words, there has to be some freedom of conscience. I'd say that this ought to be judged by whether harm is caused to a person as a result of being discriminated against. Since there are other ways for homosexuals to marry, such as through a civil registrar, it is not harmful to them if they are declined by a religious organisation.

But a civil registrar should do the job in line with the law. So if as you are suggesting religious marriage should be entirely that, then that's fair enough, and that there should be gay civic marriage then that's fair enough with ne. Is that your current position?

[Nearly Sane]

No, I was saying that because, as you point out, the logical conclusion of respecting conscience is that isis should be respected, therefore we should not allow freedom of conscience at all: to the extent that religious organisations which will not allow women or practicing homosexuals to be priests should be shut down or their scriptures altered/banned.

no, this isn't a logical conclusion. You are allowed to express disagreement with the law. Mein Kampf isn't banned. Different set of decisions.