Evangelical extremist?

[Spud]

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?

I meant that a secular civil registrar can marry them if declined by a religious registrar; so they are still able to marry, thus no harm done and a religious registrar hasn't wronged them by declining.

[Spud]

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.

But if churches are required to do ssm, a church that refuses to then will have broken the law

[Gordon]

I meant that a secular civil registrar can marry them if declined by a religious registrar; so they are still able to marry, thus no harm done and a religious registrar hasn't wronged them by declining.

The religious registrar has discriminated since the people are entitled to marry - I'd certainly say the religious registrar had 'wronged' them, and presumably the 'wronged' here share the faith of the registrar.

Your position is untenable, Spud, though I expect you'll avoid seeing this since it would involve taking a risk regarding your faith.

[Gordon]

But if churches are required to do ssm, a church that refuses to then will have broken the law

If I drive too fast I'll have broken the law - and?

[Nearly Sane]

But if churches are required to do ssm, a church that refuses to then will have broken the law

Which has nothing to do with banning scripture. And note my position is not that that should carry out SSM but that they should n't carry out civic marriage!

[Spud]

#302 & 304:

In #273 I pointed out that ssm is not the only issue. Giving a position as a priest or youth worker to someone who is practicing homosexuality would be contradictory to the faith; churches are currently exempt from equality law in this case. If you were to ban this and all similar discrimination (such as teaching passages like Romans 1 which condemns the practice of homosexuality) the entire Christian faith would have to be restricted, which is fine if the government is confident that enough people will stand for it. Congregations which want to teach this interpretation of the Bible would have to go underground. I was just thinking that there isn't much difference between allowing churches exemption from ssm and allowing them exemption from giving practicing homosexuals positions of leadership.

[Spud]

If I drive too fast I'll have broken the law - and?

And you might kill someone. Hence it's illegal.

[Nearly Sane]

#302 & 304:

In #273 I pointed out that ssm is not the only issue. Giving a position as a priest or youth worker to someone who is practicing homosexuality would be contradictory to the faith; churches are currently exempt from equality law in this case. If you were to ban this and all similar discrimination (such as teaching passages like Romans 1 which condemns the practice of homosexuality) the entire Christian faith would have to be restricted, which is fine if the government is confident that enough people will stand for it. Congregations which want to teach this interpretation of the Bible would have to go underground. I was just thinking that there isn't much difference between allowing churches exemption from ssm and allowing them exemption from giving practicing homosexuals positions of leadership.

So that would surely mean you cannot give roles to anyone who sins which means no one can be appointed. As to the subject of appointing people internally in the your churches, I don't really care. But if you employ people such as accountants or cleaners deuscrimunating against them because of the sexuality would be against the law.

[Nearly Sane]

And you might kill someone. Hence it's illegal.

you can kill people driving within the speed limit - so you think that driving should be illegal in the basis of the hence.

[Nearly Sane]

And you might kill someone. Hence it's illegal.

What if someone thought  only white people should be married in a church?

[Gordon]

#302 & 304:

In #273 I pointed out that ssm is not the only issue. Giving a position as a priest or youth worker to someone who is practicing homosexuality would be contradictory to the faith; churches are currently exempt from equality law in this case. If you were to ban this and all similar discrimination (such as teaching passages like Romans 1 which condemns the practice of homosexuality) the entire Christian faith would have to be restricted, which is fine if the government is confident that enough people will stand for it.

I suspect most people wouldn't be bothered: remember most of us aren't actively involved in Christianity and for some of us it is utterly irrelevant.
 

Congregations which want to teach this interpretation of the Bible would have to go underground.

Why - all they need do is opt out of conducting civil marriage.

I was just thinking that there isn't much difference between allowing churches exemption from ssm and allowing them exemption from giving practicing homosexuals positions of leadership.

Both would be permitting discrimination, so such exemptions are perverse.

[Shaker]

Congregations which want to teach this interpretation of the Bible would have to go underground.

Deal.

[Spud]

Both would be permitting discrimination, so such exemptions are perverse
......

So not only should they opt out of SSM, but teaching the Bible as well.

[Spud]

you can kill people driving within the speed limit - so you think that driving should be illegal in the basis of the hence.

Speed limits are dependent upon people driving safely

[Spud]

What if someone thought  only white people should be married in a church?

Not a biblical teaching so not very relevant?

[Spud]

So that would surely mean you cannot give roles to anyone who sins which means no one can be appointed. As to the subject of appointing people internally in the your churches, I don't really care. But if you employ people such as accountants or cleaners deuscrimunating against them because of the sexuality would be against the law.

Yes, everybody sins, but the idea is for people not to continue to sin.
Yes agreed about cleaners etc.

[Gordon]

Both would be permitting discrimination, so such exemptions are perverse
......

So not only should they opt out of SSM, but teaching the Bible as well.

Provided they don't discriminate I don't care what they do with the Bible - as long as they keep it to themselves.

[Nearly Sane]

Not a biblical teaching so not very relevant?

Some people have thought it to be. And we are back at you not wanting conscience but just your conscience

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, everybody sins, but the idea is for people not to continue to sin.
Yes agreed about cleaners etc.

But if they continue sinning, they are surely practicing sinners?

[Spud]

But if they continue sinning, they are surely practicing sinners?

I meant sin more in the sense of a vice. if they give up practicing homosexuality they would be able to be given a role.

[Spud]

Some people have thought it to be. And we are back at you not wanting conscience but just your conscience

And they were shown to be wrong, so we're not back there!

[Spud]

Provided they don't discriminate I don't care what they do with the Bible - as long as they keep it to themselves.

But when you marry two people or teach something in church that is always a public action.

[Nearly Sane]

And they were shown to be wrong, so we're not back there!

So if that were sure that were right, how can you be sure you are?

[Nearly Sane]

I meant sin more in the sense of a vice. if they give up practicing homosexuality they would be able to be given a role.

what's this split between vice and sin? Hope thinks you are wring so why are you right?

[Nearly Sane]

But when you marry two people or teach something in church that is always a public action.

But not a govt sanctioned one.