Evangelical extremist?

[Gordon]

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.

So, are you saying homosexual people who are sexually active are committing 'vice'?

[Gordon]

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

If it doesn't involve social legislation where the criteria isn't discretionary, such as those that make marriage legal, then what goes on in churches post-marriage is essentially a private event.

[Spud]

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

People use scripture to justify all kinds of things, including that the Bible teaches homosexuality is ok. This is, I believe, partly what the CofE advisory document to Parliament pre-2014 was correcting. Parliament clearly judged them to be correct.

[Hope]

If it doesn't involve social legislation where the criteria isn't discretionary, such as those that make marriage legal, then what goes on in churches post-marriage is essentially a private event.

Ironically, in most church marriages in Britain the legal bit is the second stage of the ceremony.  The individuals are married in the eyes of God before they are married in the eyes of the law.

[Gordon]

Ironically, in most church marriages in Britain the legal bit is the second stage of the ceremony.  The individuals are married in the eyes of God before they are married in the eyes of the law.

The reality is though that they ain't legally married until the legal stuff is done.

This isn't about any religious preamble to the legal marriage, which is discretionary and makes no difference to the legal status - the key issue is about equal access to the people who can administer the legal element of marriage.

[ippy]

Ironically, in most church marriages in Britain the legal bit is the second stage of the ceremony.  The individuals are married in the eyes of God before they are married in the eyes of the law.

Hope, the stuff you keep coming out with about gay people is a really good example of time passing you and yours by.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Ironically, in most church marriages in Britain the legal bit is the second stage of the ceremony.  The individuals are married in the eyes of God before they are married in the eyes of the law.

But if the legal bit isn't there there is no marriage, the couple aren't married. You can happily jettison the religious stuff (as if is the case for the majority of marriages held in the UK) and provided the legal stuff is still there then the marriage is valid.

So imagine a wedding that for whatever reason ended up curtailed (e.g. a fire alarm) after the religious bit but before the legal bit - would the couple be married? Nope.

The legal stuff is required for a marriage to be valid - the religious stuff completely optional and irrelevant to the validity of the marriage.

[Sassy]

Not an answer to the question. Can I refuse to treat a Jewish person as a doctor because it's against my conscience?

Doctors take an oath and the oath would not allow them to refuse treatment to anyone on such basis. But having said that, can you trust doctors whose religion makes them choose a different path.
Can and worms come to mind. Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming.

[floo]

Doctors take an oath and the oath would not allow them to refuse treatment to anyone on such basis. But having said that, can you trust doctors whose religion makes them choose a different path.
Can and worms come to mind. Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming.

Yet another silly assertion!

[Walter]

Yet another silly assertion!

what's coming ,Sassy?

[Aruntraveller]

what's coming ,Sassy?

A new series of Celebrity Big Brother.

That truly is the end of the world as we know it.

[Walter]

A new series of Celebrity Big Brother.

That truly is the end of the world as we know it.

oh please no NO.

[floo]

A new series of Celebrity Big Brother.

That truly is the end of the world as we know it.

True!

[ippy]

Doctors take an oath and the oath would not allow them to refuse treatment to anyone on such basis. But having said that, can you trust doctors whose religion makes them choose a different path.
Can and worms come to mind. Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming.

 Sass I noticed you wrote the following: 'Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming', there's no need for abuse or anything like that but can you tell me how you have acquired this information and is the source reliable, reliable insomuch as it's information that can be verified to be factual and it's not just another one of your numerous, never ending list of assertions?

ippy

[Spud]

The legal stuff is required for a marriage to be valid - the religious stuff completely optional and irrelevant to the validity of the marriage.

The problem is that ministers in religious organisations are qualified to do the legal stuff, and you guys are saying they should either resign from doing that or apostatize. Thankfully Parliament saw things from their perspective and gave them the opt out.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem is that ministers in religious organisations are qualified to do the legal stuff, and you guys are saying they should either resign from doing that or apostatize. Thankfully Parliament saw things from their perspective and gave them the opt out.

no we are not saying that. We are saying that Parliament should gave stopped them acting as registrars.

[Walter]

no we are not saying that. We are saying that Parliament should gave stopped them acting as registrars.

its not a vote winner though is it , sadly.

[Nearly Sane]

its not a vote winner though is it , sadly.

Very few pieces of legislation are though.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem is that ministers in religious organisations are qualified to do the legal stuff, and you guys are saying they should either resign from doing that or apostatize. Thankfully Parliament saw things from their perspective and gave them the opt out.

Where have I ever said that?

My point is that without the legal stuff there is no marriage, regardless of how much religious stuff there is - without the religious stuff there is a marriage provided the legal stuff is completed.

And any religious minister who is also qualified as a registrar knows this - hence the curtailed wedding that is halted after the religious stuff but before the legal stuff. The minister will know that there is no valid marriage and they'll have to come back and complete the requirements for a marriage. Were it to be the other way around - the legal stuff had been completed but none of the religious stuff had happened then a marriage would have taken place, and indeed to try to re-run it would probably be unlawful.

[ippy]

True!

Very true for anyone with at least two or three functioning brain cells.

ippy

[Gordon]

The problem is that ministers in religious organisations are qualified to do the legal stuff, and you guys are saying they should either resign from doing that or apostatize. Thankfully Parliament saw things from their perspective and gave them the opt out.

I suspect that it is more the case that in view of the established status of the C of E, and especially the links to the monarchy, in order to get the legislation through it was pragmatic to exclude the C of E from social progress.

It would have been better to ensure that those acting as registrars were required to provide the service to all who were entitled to marry, where those acting as registrars who felt unable to comply were effectively disqualifying themselves from the registrar role.

[Spud]

no we are not saying that. We are saying that Parliament should gave stopped them acting as registrars.

OK.

I suspect that it is more the case that in view of the established status of the C of E, and especially the links to the monarchy, in order to get the legislation through it was pragmatic to exclude the C of E from social progress.

It would have been better to ensure that those acting as registrars were required to provide the service to all who were entitled to marry, where those acting as registrars who felt unable to comply were effectively disqualifying themselves from the registrar role.

This could not have been the right approach, because, as most people would agree, the Bible says it's wrong. They would have been tempting them to act against what their scripture teaches (ie apostatize) in order to keep their licences. The best thing would have been either to disqualify all church ministers from acting as registrars, as NS said, or allow them to do so without requiring them to conduct SSMs. The acts of marrying same sex couples and giving practicing homosexuals positions in ministry, both of which a church is currently not required to do, would involve a minister doing something that is against biblical teaching, and thus illogical.

To disallow ministers of religion to act as registrars (for heterosexual couples) would likewise be illogical. This is because the marriage service in (say) a Christian wedding is by nature more 'valid' (probably the wrong word) than a simple civil ceremony, since it is done in the sight of God and includes promises of lifelong faithfulness etc (which civil ceremonies do not require). It thus makes marriages stronger.
Just a few thoughts there.

[Gordon]

OK.This could not have been the right approach, because, as most people would agree, the Bible says it's wrong.

That the Bible says it's 'wrong', if that is indeed what it says, isn't binding in a secular 21st century society.

They would have been tempting them to act against what their scripture teaches (ie apostatize) in order to keep their licences. The best thing would have been either to disqualify all church ministers from acting as registrars, as NS said, or allow them to do so without requiring them to conduct SSMs.

The former, Spud, aside from clerics who are prepared to act as registrars without discriminating.

The issues of marrying same sex couples and giving practicing homosexuals positions in ministry, both of which a church is currently not required to do, would involve a minister doing something that is against biblical teaching, and thus illogical.

I'd have thought the church could do with all the talent it could get. Given, however, that the Bible has been 'interpreted' to within an inch of its life I'd have thought there would be no problem in doing so again. If not, the adherence to 'scripture' seems like a do-it-yourself hangman's kit.
 

To disallow ministers of religion to act as registrars (for heterosexual couples) would likewise be illogical.

If they can't stop discriminating then they need to relinquish the role - marriage is an important institution so it is best kept out of the hands of homophobic bigots.

This is because the marriage service in (say) a Christian wedding is by nature more valid than a simple civil ceremony, since it is done in the sight of God and includes promises of lifelong faithfulness etc (which civil ceremonies do not require). It thus makes marriages stronger.

This sounds like special pleading Spud - have you asked those who married without a religious input if they feel less married than those who did the church thing?

[Brownie]

Marriage is always to be taken seriously, regardless of religion.  However, in Catholicism, marriage is a Sacrament, as it is in the CofE and in the Orthodox Churches who also call Sacraments, "Traditional Mysteries". 

I understand marriage is not a Sacrament in the Church of Scotland and other denominations.

[Outrider]

Doctors take an oath and the oath would not allow them to refuse treatment to anyone on such basis.

I'm not sure they do any more, to be honest. And even when they do, it's their interpretation of what constitutes harm (not that the phrase 'do not harm' actually appears in most variants of the Hippocratic Oath), and even then there are any number of administrative burdens on them that dictate what they can or can't offer before it ever gets to their decisions.

But having said that, can you trust doctors whose religion makes them choose a different path.

I suspect it's a case-by-case (if you'll excuse the pun) thing, rather than a blanket decision. In general, most people who decided to go into medicine do it in order to help people; if their religion is an influence in that, generally it will be a moral motivation to help.

Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming.

What, Valentine's Day? And which god(s)?

O.