Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Gordon]

And by the same token priests do not feel scripture qualifies them for gender neutral weddings and the law surely underlines that as well.

You are bigging up the status of your opinion which has no support in law. To get any purchase for your argument
Both humanist celebrants and priests have to get qualified for both gender neutral holy matrimony and gender important holy matrimony.

You seem especially dense: what bit of 'Humanist celebrants are not clerics and, therefore, cannot provide the "holy matrimony" you speak of', are you not getting? You also mention 'the law' but marriage law differs within the UK - for example.

In Scotland.

* As Anchorman pointed out earlier, clerics are not permitted to conduct civil marriages.

* Marriages conducted by Humanist celebrants can take place anywhere the celebrant is prepared to conduct the service (hotel, beach, garden etc) - but not on religious premises - and will have immediate legal force without the involvement of a state Registrar.

* Religious ceremonies can also occur anywhere the cleric is prepared to conduct the ceremony.

* Civil marriages involving a state Registrar can occur anywhere that the registration authority permits.

A civil marriage ceremony can take place in a registration office or any other appropriate location (other than religious premises) that has been agreed by the couple and the registration authority, for example a stately home, a boat in Scottish waters or a hillside.

A religious or belief ceremony includes religious beliefs and other belief systems such as humanism. A religious or belief ceremony can be held anywhere (for example on a boat or hillside) as long as the couple can find an approved celebrant. This is someone who is authorised to perform marriages.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership-s/getting-married-s/

In England & Wales.

* Humanist celebrants can also conduct marriages anywhere but these have no legal force in themselves, and a separate civil ceremony conducted by a state Registrar is also required for the marriage to be legal.

* Legal marriages can only take place in premises approved by he registration authorities and, unlike here in Scotland, outdoor marriages in gardens or on a beach are not immediately legal, and if the couple want an outdoor ceremony outwith any approved premises they will also need a separate civil ceremony in an approved fixed structure (which can include permanent gazebos attached to hotels), and only then are they legally married.

Same sex couples can only marry in a religious ceremony, if the religious organisation has agreed to carry out same sex weddings, and the premises have been registered for the marriage of same sex couples. Religious organisations or individual ministers do not have to marry same sex couples. Same sex couples cannot marry in The Church of England or the Church in Wales......

Local authorities in England and Wales may approve premises other than Register Offices where civil marriages may take place. Applications for approval must be made by the owner or trustee of the building, not the couple.

The premises must be regularly open to members of the public, so private homes are unlikely to be approved, since they are not normally open to the public. Stately homes, hotels and civic buildings are likely to be thought suitable. Approval will not be given for open air venues, such as moonlit beaches or golf courses. Generally, the premises will need to be permanent built structures, although it may be possible for approval to be given to a permanently moored, publicly open boat. Hot air balloons or aeroplanes will not be approved......

You can get married by a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.

In both cases, the following legal requirements must be met:-

the marriage must be conducted by a person or in the presence of a person authorised to register marriages in the district

the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/getting-married/

Anyway - now that I've clarified some of the varying legal aspects, since you keep mentioning "the law" perhaps you could now confirm whether or not you agree that where religious authorities or Humanist celebrants in any part of UK decline to marry same-sex couples then they are exhibiting personal and/or organisational homophobia. 

[Anchorman]

Don't be daft: not being in a position to provide a service in the first place: for example I am not in a position to provide a dental service, is not the same as being able to provide a particular service but declining to do so in certain selected cases.

If Humanist celebrants aren't qualified to provide "holy matrimony" in the first place then they can't be accused of discrimination by refusing to conduct a ceremony that they are not competent to perform.

Stop digging.

         



I've been training for the 'Ordained local Ministry' in the CofS. I should have been ordained last year, but decided an onine ordination wasn't my cup of tea.
The ministry would allow me to conduct the wo sacraments (there are but two in the CofS) as well as weddings.
I'd be faced with a potential situation where a kirk session to which I was attached by Presbytery may sanction a wedding which, in conscience, I could not conduct. This would lead to schism and dissention in a congregation.
The ' a minister is not forced to conduct....' isn't the simplistic solution it is meant to be.
I know of two situations - unrelated to sexuality - where a minister's refusal to conduct led to acrimony and Kirk disciplinary charges which resulted in the congregations being dissolved and members going to other kirks or other denominations.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know of two situations - unrelated to sexuality - where a minister's refusal to conduct led to acrimony and Kirk disciplinary charges which resulted in the congregations being dissolved and members going to other kirks or other denominations.

So an organisation shouldn't do the right thing because some members may leave - let's not forget that earlier in the thread you said that you'd leave yourself in circumstances where the CofS allowed marriage between a same sex couple, so you are just as complicit.

But there is always the focus on those who'd leave if churches got rid of discriminatory practice (whether on gender or sexuality) - how many people have walked away from churches they'd previously been members of due to the retention of such practices. Across the UK church membership and congregations are declining and one of the main reasons is a failure to attract the young to become members as adults (note many of these people will have been brought up within those congregations). How many of these people walking are doing so, in part, because those organisations simply don't align with their own ethical values which have no truck with discrimination.

So your kind of implicit assertion that retaining discrimination keeps congregations together and strong isn't sustainable - regardless of what the churches do there will be people incensed (publicly or privately) and will choose to walk. So whether you do the right thing or do the wrong thing you will lose some members (and perhaps gain others) - so you might as well have a bit of moral courage and do the right thing.

[Nearly Sane]

So an organisation shouldn't do the right thing because some members may leave - let's not forget that earlier in the thread you said that you'd leave yourself in circumstances where the CofS allowed marriage between a same sex couple, so you are just as complicit.

But there is always the focus on those who'd leave if churches got rid of discriminatory practice (whether on gender or sexuality) - how many people have walked away from churches they'd previously been members of due to the retention of such practices. Across the UK church membership and congregations are declining and one of the main reasons is a failure to attract the young to become members as adults (note many of these people will have been brought up within those congregations). How many of these people walking are doing so, in part, because those organisations simply don't align with their own ethical values which have no truck with discrimination.

So your kind of implicit assertion that retaining discrimination keeps congregations together and strong isn't sustainable - regardless of what the churches do there will be people incensed (publicly or privately) and will choose to walk. So whether you do the right thing or do the wrong thing you will lose some members (and perhaps gain others) - so you might as well have a bit of moral courage and do the right thing.

When you say 'gender or sexuality', do you mean 'sex or sexuality'? 

[Outrider]

Don’t think so. Both couples are being discriminated against.

Arguably, but there's a moral difference between not choosing to offer something in keeping with someone's aesthetic choices (religion) and not choosing to offer something in keeping with someone's intrinsic nature (sexuality). There is a category error, and it's the same one that's in the Equalities Act, which is putting religious belief in the same bracket as sex, race and sexuality.

If someone objected to officiating a wedding with blue flowers that's no discrimination, that's just not liking someone's choices: not wanting to officiate a Christian wedding is morally the same, but not wanting to officiate a wedding where the groom's potential spouse is black, or male, or gay is not the same thing at all.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

When you say 'gender or sexuality', do you mean 'sex or sexuality'?

Possibly, but not sure that is really relevant to the discussion here.

[Nearly Sane]

Possibly, but not sure that is really relevant to the discussion here.

Clarity is surely relevant to any discussion? Whereas gender was once seen as a polite way of saying sex, and synonymous in certain areas, the ongoing issue on trans makes it a lot less clear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think Blue sees the point that the reason Humanist celebrants exclude couples wanting holy matrimony are in the same category as why some priests exclude same sex couples and that is why the law is as it is.
Yes there are priests whose motivation is homophobia and priests who observe the scriptural definition.
As there will be Humanist celebrants who are motivated by their beliefs and those motivated  by religious persecution.

When you crash and burn you really go down in flames don't you. The whole point about racism, ageism, homophobia etc is that they concern rights that are applied differentially on the basis of innate characteristics. If humanists were offer "holy" matrimony to no-one or to everyone is neither here nor there - the whole point is that your homophobic church (acting according to its belief in a homophobic god) provides a service differentially to one group (straight people) but not to another (gay people).

Dear god but you struggle.   

[Anchorman]

So an organisation shouldn't do the right thing because some members may leave - let's not forget that earlier in the thread you said that you'd leave yourself in circumstances where the CofS allowed marriage between a same sex couple, so you are just as complicit. But there is always the focus on those who'd leave if churches got rid of discriminatory practice (whether on gender or sexuality) - how many people have walked away from churches they'd previously been members of due to the retention of such practices. Across the UK church membership and congregations are declining and one of the main reasons is a failure to attract the young to become members as adults (note many of these people will have been brought up within those congregations). How many of these people walking are doing so, in part, because those organisations simply don't align with their own ethical values which have no truck with discrimination. So your kind of implicit assertion that retaining discrimination keeps congregations together and strong isn't sustainable - regardless of what the churches do there will be people incensed (publicly or privately) and will choose to walk. So whether you do the right thing or do the wrong thing you will lose some members (and perhaps gain others) - so you might as well have a bit of moral courage and do the right thing.

".....the right thing...." That's a matter of perspective; a matter of balance. A minister must be there as pastor, yes - to look after all the flock, not just some. If, by acquiescing to the needs of a few, the many are scattered, that's bad stewardship. This isn't a case of trying to find the missing sheep to return it to the flock - it's a case of stopping a flock disintegrating. This is not easy; somewhere along the line, some parties may be offended enough to leave a congregation....whose needs are the greater? That's one reason that I may not be in the CofS long enough to be ordained...it's probably not a brave decision, but I don't want to be the one making it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem especially dense: what bit of 'Humanist celebrants are not clerics and, therefore, cannot provide the "holy matrimony" you speak of', are you not getting? You also mention 'the law' but marriage law differs within the UK - for example.

In Scotland.

* As Anchorman pointed out earlier, clerics are not permitted to conduct civil marriages.

* Marriages conducted by Humanist celebrants can take place anywhere the celebrant is prepared to conduct the service (hotel, beach, garden etc) - but not on religious premises - and will have immediate legal force without the involvement of a state Registrar.

* Religious ceremonies can also occur anywhere the cleric is prepared to conduct the ceremony.

* Civil marriages involving a state Registrar can occur anywhere that the registration authority permits.
 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership-s/getting-married-s/

In England & Wales.

* Humanist celebrants can also conduct marriages anywhere but these have no legal force in themselves, and a separate civil ceremony conducted by a state Registrar is also required for the marriage to be legal.

* Legal marriages can only take place in premises approved by he registration authorities and, unlike here in Scotland, outdoor marriages in gardens or on a beach are not immediately legal, and if the couple want an outdoor ceremony outwith any approved premises they will also need a separate civil ceremony in an approved fixed structure (which can include permanent gazebos attached to hotels), and only then are they legally married.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/getting-married/

Anyway - now that I've clarified some of the varying legal aspects, since you keep mentioning "the law" perhaps you could now confirm whether or not you agree that where religious authorities or Humanist celebrants in any part of UK decline to marry same-sex couples then they are exhibiting personal and/or organisational homophobia.

Of course they aren’t clergy and nobody sensible is going to make them perform a holy matrimony or even if they make them, expect integrity out of that service. Similarly if those celebrants
Felt they could not, with any integrity carry out a gender neutral marriage. And that is true of anyone.

Once again gender neutral is not or ever can be the same as gender important.

Every bodies marriage is gender important after all.

Gender neutral marriages and partner number neutral marriages were not included in the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony. Polygamy is different from monogamy and one needed as a Christian to decide whether to forgo and have holy matrimony or retain and be multiply married under some other right or law. Gender neutral marriage was not even apparently considered a thing and so there is no argument that it was specifically excluded as a homophobic act. Some Christians I would imagine use that as a basis to argue that the definition of matrimony as gender important was a temporary definition. Christians holding that argument would in terms of marrying a same sex partner in a rite which has the integrity provided by a priest of that belief would likely go down that avenue.

For me this interpretation has flaws. Not least the nature of objections including the word piracy and intellectual totalitarianism involved and the idea that gender importance should not be a factor in marriage. The idea that God has fear of homosexuality, the idea that god is just a big homophobe and last but not least the provisional and obviously elastic nature of this relatively new term homophobia.

[Outrider]

Once again gender neutral is not or ever can be the same as gender important. Every bodies marriage is gender important after all.

Firstly, again, it's not about gender, it's about sexuality.

Secondly, their sexuality might be important to them as participants, but why is it important to the process?

Gender neutral marriages and partner number neutral marriages were not included in the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony.

But concubines were.

Polygamy is different from monogamy and one needed as a Christian to decide whether to forgo and have holy matrimony or retain and be multiply married under some other right or law. Gender neutral marriage was not even apparently considered a thing and so there is no argument that it was specifically excluded as a homophobic act.

No, not having it considered at the time is exactly that, you are choosing to interpret it as a specifically excluded concept. You could step up and be Christian in the tradition of those that made a call on polygamy and changed the doctrine.

Some Christians I would imagine use that as a basis to argue that the definition of matrimony as gender important was a temporary definition. Christians holding that argument would in terms of marrying a same sex partner in a rite which has the integrity provided by a priest of that belief would likely go down that avenue.

For me this interpretation has flaws. Not least the nature of objections including the word piracy and intellectual totalitarianism involved and the idea that gender importance should not be a factor in marriage. The idea that God has fear of homosexuality, the idea that god is just a big homophobe and last but not least the provisional and obviously elastic nature of this relatively new term homophobia.

So it's entirely possible to reconcile Christianity with accepting homosexuality, it's just that you (and those of your ilk) don't... if only we had a word for that?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When you say 'gender or sexuality', do you mean 'sex or sexuality'?

School me. Thank you.

[Enki]

I think Blue sees the point that the reason Humanist celebrants exclude couples wanting holy matrimony are in the same category as why some priests exclude same sex couples and that is why the law is as it is.
Yes there are priests whose motivation is homophobia and priests who observe the scriptural definition.
As there will be Humanist celebrants who are motivated by their beliefs and those motivated  by religious persecution.

Rubbish.

Humanists exclude everyone from Holy Matrimony simply because they don't cater for it. There is no discrimination involved.

Discrimination is the act of treating individuals or groups of people differently. Hence, a church which discriminates against certain people who want a Holy matrimony service, as in the case of same sex couples, for instance, and because discrimination can be regarded as linked to homophobia, therefore this can lead to the accusation of homophobia.

[Roses]

Vlad waffles on and on but is totally clueless.

[Gordon]

Of course they aren’t clergy and nobody sensible is going to make them perform a holy matrimony or even if they make them, expect integrity out of that service. Similarly if those celebrants
Felt they could not, with any integrity carry out a gender neutral marriage. And that is true of anyone.

Once again gender neutral is not or ever can be the same as gender important.

Every bodies marriage is gender important after all.

Gender neutral marriages and partner number neutral marriages were not included in the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony. Polygamy is different from monogamy and one needed as a Christian to decide whether to forgo and have holy matrimony or retain and be multiply married under some other right or law. Gender neutral marriage was not even apparently considered a thing and so there is no argument that it was specifically excluded as a homophobic act. Some Christians I would imagine use that as a basis to argue that the definition of matrimony as gender important was a temporary definition. Christians holding that argument would in terms of marrying a same sex partner in a rite which has the integrity provided by a priest of that belief would likely go down that avenue.

For me this interpretation has flaws. Not least the nature of objections including the word piracy and intellectual totalitarianism involved and the idea that gender importance should not be a factor in marriage. The idea that God has fear of homosexuality, the idea that god is just a big homophobe and last but not least the provisional and obviously elastic nature of this relatively new term homophobia.

Maybe you should worry less about the moveable feast that is 'holy', especially given the social attitudes involved seem to be rooted in the social and religious mores of antiquity, and worry more about tackling overt discrimination such as homophobia right now.

You seem to be under the impression that what you regard as being 'holy' is in some sense binding on society at large and merits reverence and special privileges: well some us 'regard' your 'holy' as being utterly perverse and in need of change.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe you should worry less about the moveable feast that is 'holy', especially given the social attitudes involved seem to be rooted in the social and religious mores of antiquity, and worry more about tackling overt discrimination such as homophobia right now.

You seem to be under the impression that what you regard as being 'holy' is in some sense binding on society at large and merits reverence and special privileges: well some us 'regard' your 'holy' as being utterly perverse and in need of change.

No, as I have said but you have tried to disguise , that the gender important model has no monopoly on the title matrimony. It may be that it doesn't have a monopoly on the title holy matrimony. But the model of gender importance is always going to be a thing and is always going to be distinct from homophobia......whatever that means.

[Gordon]

No, as I have said but you have tried to disguise , that the gender important model has no monopoly on the title matrimony. It may be that it doesn't have a monopoly on the title holy matrimony. But the model of gender importance is always going to be a thing and is always going to be distinct from homophobia......whatever that means.

Of course "gender important model" is yet another of you bespoke phrases designed, no doubt, to avoid the core issue here: which is that some religious people and some religious groups regard their definition of 'holy' marriage (the 'one man, one woman' bit) to be authoritative when it obviously isn't in the UK at least, since same-sex marriage is now legal.

Clinging to your "holy matrimony" notion means you are clinging to homophobia: since this description implies homophobia no matter how much you try to distract and evade.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, again, it's not about gender, it's about sexuality.

Secondly, their sexuality might be important to them as participants, but why is it important to the process?

But concubines were.

No, not having it considered at the time is exactly that, you are choosing to interpret it as a specifically excluded concept. You could step up and be Christian in the tradition of those that made a call on polygamy and changed the doctrine.

So it's entirely possible to reconcile Christianity with accepting homosexuality, it's just that you (and those of your ilk) don't... if only we had a word for that?

O.

The early Christians thought that having Concubines was ok, are you sure about that.

I put it to you that in the intimate aspects of your own marriage gender importance is a big part of your marriage and that must be true of any marriage including Same sex marriage.

Now if you insist it is not a factor then you obviously wouldn’t mind being married to a man. This position would be similar to the Ancient Jewish view that everyone has a homosexual tendency and is capable of a sexual relationship with others of the same sex.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course "gender important model" is yet another of you bespoke phrases designed, no doubt, to avoid the core issue here: which is that some religious people and some religious groups regard their definition of 'holy' marriage (the 'one man, one woman' bit) to be authoritative when it obviously isn't in the UK at least, since same-sex marriage is now legal.

Clinging to your "holy matrimony" notion means you are clinging to homophobia: since this description implies homophobia no matter how much you try to distract and evade.

I take it in your own marriage the one man one woman thing is more than just a bit.
Other than that I disagree that the focus of holy matrimony was or is to “stick one on the gays” and that the rest of your schtick is the fallacy of modernity.

Authoritive?, insufficient revelation to say it isn’t and insufficient cogency on the part of biased atheists also.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be under the impression that what you regard as being 'holy' is in some sense binding on society at large and merits reverence and special privileges: well some us 'regard' your 'holy' as being utterly perverse and in need of change.

That’s because you are reducing the word holy down to meaning “ one’s perspective on gay marriage in church”........ Gordon getting it completely wrong, or what?

 Weaponising homosexuality, that’s perverse.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

".....the right thing...." That's a matter of perspective; a matter of balance. A minister must be there as pastor, yes - to look after all the flock, not just some. If, by acquiescing to the needs of a few, the many are scattered, that's bad stewardship. This isn't a case of trying to find the missing sheep to return it to the flock - it's a case of stopping a flock disintegrating. This is not easy; somewhere along the line, some parties may be offended enough to leave a congregation....whose needs are the greater? That's one reason that I may not be in the CofS long enough to be ordained...it's probably not a brave decision, but I don't want to be the one making it.

The Klu Klux Klan could use the same defence. Either you think rights made available or denied on the ground of an innate characteristic is acceptable or you don't. That's all there is to it.

If you think it's fine though because you don't like what would happen to the institution that does it, you're:

a) wrong; and

b) in very dodgy company. 
   

[Gordon]

That’s because you are reducing the word holy down to meaning “ one’s perspective on gay marriage in church”........ Gordon getting it completely wrong, or what?

 Weaponising homosexuality, that’s perverse.

Nope - "Holy" is your term, Vlad, and I'm assuming, what with you being a Christian and all, that you mean "holy matrimony" involves compliance with Christian dogma and tradition, where some interpretations of these lead directly to homophobia.

Perhaps you should tell us what you mean by the term 'holy matrimony'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As you seem to have missed it, here's the correction i gave you a few post ago:

When you crash and burn you really go down in flames don't you. The whole point about racism, ageism, homophobia etc is that they concern rights that are applied differentially on the basis of innate characteristics. If humanists were offer "holy" matrimony to no-one or to everyone is neither here nor there - the whole point is that your homophobic church (acting according to its belief in a homophobic god) provides a service differentially to one group (straight people) but not to another (gay people).

Dear god but you struggle.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anchs,

The Klu Klux Klan could use the same defence. Either you think rights made available or denied on the ground of an innate characteristic is acceptable or you don't. That's all there is to it.

If you think it's fine though because you don't like what would happen to the institution that does it, you're:

a) wrong; and

b) in very dodgy company. 
 

The KKK were distinctly set up for the purposes of white supremacy.
How is this a good analogy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you seem to have missed it, here's the correction i gave you a few post ago:

When you crash and burn you really go down in flames don't you. The whole point about racism, ageism, homophobia etc is that they concern rights that are applied differentially on the basis of innate characteristics. If humanists were offer "holy" matrimony to no-one or to everyone is neither here nor there - the whole point is that your homophobic church (acting according to its belief in a homophobic god) provides a service differentially to one group (straight people) but not to another (gay people).

Racism is a motivation. Are people that stick to the description of matrimony, motivated by homophobia? Is God homophobic ?