Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.

[Aruntraveller]

Sorry, Rhi, but if the Church claims the New Testament as its' rule book

And yet sometimes the church seems able to bend or break its rules:

1 Corinthians 14: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

PS I am sure some special exemption for this will be found. If so explain why written this way in the first place (other than it being the result of patriarchal society)

[Roses]

And yet sometimes the church seems able to bend or break its rules:

1 Corinthians 14: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

PS I am sure some special exemption for this will be found. If so explain why written this way in the first place (other than it being the result of patriarchal society)

Good post. The idea of women priests like my daughter, would have been inconceivable when I was young.

[Spud]

And yet sometimes the church seems able to bend or break its rules:

1 Corinthians 14: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

PS I am sure some special exemption for this will be found. If so explain why written this way in the first place (other than it being the result of patriarchal society)

Imagine that someone in the congregation interrupts Paul while he is preaching about God's sovereign choice, saying, "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" and he answers "who are you O man to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). Or in an extreme scenario, he might need to tell someone to sit down and shut up. He could not really talk in that way to a lady, in church. This may be why Paul tells women to be silent in the churches and ask their husbands at home. He doesn't want women arguing with men in the church.

[Rhiannon]

Imagine that someone in Paul's congregation interrupts him while he is preaching about God's sovereign choice, saying, "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" and he answers "who are you O man to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). Or in an extreme scenario, he might need to tell someone to sit down and shut up. He could not really talk in that way to a lady, in church. This may be why Paul tells women to be silent in the churches and ask their husbands at home. He doesn't want women arguing with men in the church.

So why are there women priests and bishops? Leaving aside the unlikely scenario that Paul had any concept of women being ‘ladies’.

[Spud]

Because there aren't enough men to do the job? Maybe they all got so fed up wi all them women arguing?

[jeremyp]

Don't be so ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with gay or straight sex in an adult consenting relationship. It is only bigots who thinks there is anything wrong with gay sexual relationships.

Earlier in the thread I was giving Spud a hard time for refusing to do his job properly. Unfortunately, this is the same thing. The CofE rules state a gay priest in the church cannot have sex with their partner. Since this rule is apparently legal (I think it should not be), if the couple is unable to keep to it, they should really resign, as Spud should have done from his paper round.

[jeremyp]

Please don't patronise me. I am disagreeing with you, not misunderstanding you.

Yes but by most people's definition it clearly is a step in the right direction. It goes from no official recognition of same sex relationships to recognising one particular official form of it. It's a fudge and it still isn't an acceptable situation but it does make things slightly better than they were before.

[jeremyp]

When I accepted the job I was not told I might be asked to deliver gay magazines. When I was asked to deliver them I said no - they were then free to sack me; they decided to keep me on.

Bullshit. You were asked to deliver the magazines that the shop's customers ordered, not pick and choose. It may not have occurred to you when you took the job that that might include gay magazines, but when you found out that it would, your responsible courses of action consisted of:

1. suck it up and do your job

2. offer your resignation

[jeremyp]

Ashers bakery is an example. Or the B&B owners who are asked to provide a double room, the dating website asked to extend its service to same-sex-attracted people. I suspect most Christians in business could face this dilemma in some way.

The Ashers situation is fundamentally different to the other cases you bring up. The Ashers bakery refused to bake a cake with a certain message on it. It didn't matter who ordered it or which way they swung, the problem was the message on the cake, which is a free speech issue.

The B&B people and the dating web site refused to extend a service to people because they were gay. Ashers Bakery did not refuse to bake a cake because the customer was gay.

[Aruntraveller]

He doesn't want women arguing with men in the church.

That would never do.

The very thought of it is bringing on a fit of the vapours.

[Rhiannon]

Yes but by most people's definition it clearly is a step in the right direction. It goes from no official recognition of same sex relationships to recognising one particular official form of it. It's a fudge and it still isn't an acceptable situation but it does make things slightly better than they were before.

But it doesn't. It's just replacing one form of discrimination and shaming with other.

[Spud]

Bullshit. You were asked to deliver the magazines that the shop's customers ordered, not pick and choose. It may not have occurred to you when you took the job that that might include gay magazines, but when you found out that it would, your responsible courses of action consisted of:

1. suck it up and do your job

2. offer your resignation

In the same post I said, "What about the useful aspects of the job such as helping the elderly lady who can't get to the paper shop?" I will add, the elderly lady who is grateful to know that someone's been. Or the kid who looks forward to his Beano every Thursday.

Money's not the only reason for working. And you can find a similar scenario for every job, where a homosexual could accuse someone of discrimination. So you basically are saying that Christians can't do paid work.

[Spud]

The Ashers situation is fundamentally different to the other cases you bring up. The Ashers bakery refused to bake a cake with a certain message on it. It didn't matter who ordered it or which way they swung, the problem was the message on the cake, which is a free speech issue.

The B&B people and the dating web site refused to extend a service to people because they were gay. Ashers Bakery did not refuse to bake a cake because the customer was gay.

No, if the b&b would allow them single rooms instead they would be extending their service to them. If the dating website allowed people to search for people of the opposite sex only they would likewise not be withholding the service.

[Aruntraveller]

No, if the b&b would allow them single rooms instead they would be extending their service to them.

Not on the same terms as for heterosexuals though. Hence discrimination.

[Aruntraveller]

Imagine that someone in the congregation interrupts Paul while he is preaching about God's sovereign choice, saying, "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?" and he answers "who are you O man to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). Or in an extreme scenario, he might need to tell someone to sit down and shut up. He could not really talk in that way to a lady, in church. This may be why Paul tells women to be silent in the churches and ask their husbands at home. He doesn't want women arguing with men in the church.

This doesn't answer the question of Christians picking and choosing which edicts to follow.

Surely all the rules apply or none do?

[jeremyp]

But it doesn't. It's just replacing one form of discrimination and shaming with other.

But it's a fractionally less bad form of discrimination. Some people who were discriminated against before are not discriminated against now - or at least, not as badly.

[jeremyp]

In the same post I said, "What about the useful aspects of the job such as helping the elderly lady who can't get to the paper shop?"

But that service could have been performed by somebody else quite easily.

So you basically are saying that Christians can't do paid work.

Don't be stupid. You couldn't do the job you were contracted to but that doesn't mean that Christians generally can't do paid work.

[jeremyp]

No, if the b&b would allow them single rooms instead they would be extending their service to them. If the dating website allowed people to search for people of the opposite sex only they would likewise not be withholding the service.

The B&B couple booked a double room. The owners said the only allowed double rooms to people who were married. They lost the case because the couple was in a civil partnership, which was the only form of marriage available at the time and legally equivalent according to the judge. The owners lost the case because they refused to accept that the gay couple had the same rights as a married heterosexual couple. In other words they discriminated against the gay couple because they were gay.

The dating site was there to match couples. If they only match people with members of the opposite sex, they are not doing their job for gay people. They are discriminating against people because they are gay.

[Rhiannon]

But it's a fractionally less bad form of discrimination. Some people who were discriminated against before are not discriminated against now - or at least, not as badly.

I really don't see it as that. It's just discrimination in presented in a different form. But I guess that others see it differently.

[Spud]

But that service could have been performed by somebody else quite easily.
Don't be stupid. You couldn't do the job you were contracted to but that doesn't mean that Christians generally can't do paid work.

It means that no job they do is secure. Think about it.

[Rhiannon]

It means that no job they do is secure. Think about it.

Cobblers. I think you'll find quite a lot in your Bible about not judging others. If you abide by that rule then paid work generally isn't an issue.

My mother is a Christian and had had a variety of jobs including shop work and working for the civil service... and a voluntary one supporting gay people with HIV/AIDS. Guess which one of you I think is the true Christian here.

[Aruntraveller]

It means that no job they do is secure. Think about it.

You've still not answered my point upthread about a gay doctor who doesn't want to treat you because of your obvious willingness to discriminate against gay people. Is he allowed to refuse to treat you on his moral grounds? Do you accept that?

[SteveH]

Your version of your chuch worships a book, or collection of writings by very fallible and sometimes unkind human beings, yes, I know. Chilling really when you think what that does to the souls of people.

No orthodox Christian, however conservative, worships the bible.

[Rhiannon]

No orthodox Christian, however conservative, worships the bible.

No, I know that. Evangelicalism though puts so much emphasis on words in a book that it is a form of idolatry.

[Roses]

No orthodox Christian, however conservative, worships the bible.

They worship the characters within that storybook.