Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Why an institution provides and denies rights on the basis of innate characteristics is a different matter, and is neither here nor there for this purpose. Whether it’s the KKK or the bus company though that denies rights to black people makes no difference. 

That’s why it’s a good analogy.

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

Your god is, yes – and so is the church that’s doing what it thinks this supposed god wants (though the god and churches of other Christians apparently aren’t). Yet again though, the point is that you espouse an institution that provides certain rights to straight people and denies the same rights to gay people. You can dance around why it acts homophobically all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does.

Which is the point. 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

But the issue of clarity on this matter is only relevant if to those who consider sex/gender to be relevant in terms of the type of person who can become a priest or the nature of a couple who can marry. If you don't think gender/sex is relevant to the matter (as I do) then being clear about the matter is not relevant.

Now I've no idea how religious organisations who restrict being a priest to men only define what a man is - so whether they'd consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman. Nor whether they consider a marriage between a cis-man and a trans-woman to be a same sex marriage or not. But that is their issue (and I suspect they tie themselves up in knots over this), not mine, as I think that the gender/sex of the person should be irrelevant.

So asking me to be clear about the matter is no more relevant that asking someone who does not think that there should be segregated drinking fountains for black people and white people to be clear about whether a person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents is black or white. To that person the matter is irrelevant - it is only relevant to those who want to segregate on the basis of race.

[Nearly Sane]

But the issue of clarity on this matter is only relevant if to those who consider sex/gender to be relevant in terms of the type of person who can become a priest or the nature of a couple who can marry. If you don't think gender/sex is relevant to the matter (as I do) then being clear about the matter is not relevant.

Now I've no idea how religious organisations who restrict being a priest to men only define what a man is - so whether they'd consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman. Nor whether they consider a marriage between a cis-man and a trans-woman to be a same sex marriage or not. But that is their issue (and I suspect they tie themselves up in knots over this), not mine, as I think that the gender/sex of the person should be irrelevant.

So asking me to be clear about the matter is no more relevant that asking someone who does not think that there should be segregated drinking fountains for black people and white people to be clear about whether a person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents is black or white. To that person the matter is irrelevant - it is only relevant to those who want to segregate on the basis of race.

Cis is a nonsense term here. Gender and sex are not interchangeable. Gender is in that sense regressive patriarchal woo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

...regressive patriarchal woo.

Genius level phrase!

[ProfessorDavey]

Cis is a nonsense term here. Gender and sex are not interchangeable. Gender is in that sense regressive patriarchal woo.

Cis is the broadly accepted term for people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, as apposed to trans.

And it is relevant here as for those who think that being a priest should only be for a man, then they have to determine whether a trans-woman is a man or a woman. And for those who think that marriage must only be between a man or a woman, they have to wrestle with whether a marriage between a cis-man and a trans-woman is same sex or opposite sex. And I suspect they may not be consistent in their conclusions.

But as I've pointed out the onus isn't on me to define who is male or female in this context as I think the sex or gender of a person wanting to be a priest or the sex or gender of the individuals in a couple wanted to get married is irrelevant. That surely isn't a hard concept to understand - any more than expecting you (who I assume doesn't believe that drinking fountains should be segregated) to be clear about whether a person with one black grandparent and three white ones is black or white in the context of which drinking fountain they should be allowed to use.

[Nearly Sane]

Cis is the broadly accepted term for people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, as apposed to trans.

And it is relevant here as for those who think that being a priest should only be for a man, then they have to determine whether a trans-woman is a man or a woman. And for those who think that marriage must only be between a man or a woman, they have to wrestle with whether a marriage between a cis-man and a trans-woman is same sex or opposite sex. And I suspect they may not be consistent in their conclusions.

But as I've pointed out the onus isn't on me to define who is male or female in this context as I think the sex or gender of a person wanting to be a priest or the sex or gender of the individuals in a couple wanted to get married is irrelevant. That surely isn't a hard concept to understand - any more than expecting you (who I assume doesn't believe that drinking fountains should be segregated) to be clear about whether a person with one black grandparent and three white ones is black or white in the context of which drinking fountain they should be allowed to use.

Cis is iduotic in this context. It subscribest to a reifying of gender that is based around stereotypes. Sex is mot assigned at birth, it is observed. Your touting anti scientific bollocks.

[ProfessorDavey]

Cis is iduotic in this context. It subscribest to a reifying of gender that is based around stereotypes. Sex is mot assigned at birth, it is observed. Your touting anti scientific bollocks.

I think you are mistaking this thread for another one on this MB. You cannot really complain about the use of the term 'cis' if you are happy to use the term 'trans'. Off you pop to that other thread if you wish to rant on the matter.

[Outrider]

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

It's a significant part of the Bible - Solomon and David and others.

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.

What I do or do not choose to consider important in my particular marriage includes, but also expands upon, what is important in the concept of marriage. Some people maintain marriages without having 'intimate aspects' - the gender of my spouse is only important in regards to my sexuality, and no-one is suggesting that the various churches are denying people a marriage ceremony based upon their gender or their sex.

Now if you insist it is not a factor then you obviously wouldn’t mind being married to a man.

I would object to me being married to a man, I wouldn't object to the general concept of a man 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.

That idea that sexuality is a spectrum is not confined to ancient Jewish traditions, it's a fairly well-established idea within psychology. As to 'capable'... isn't desirous a more important consideration?

O.
[/quote]

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are mistaking this thread for another one on this MB. You cannot really complain about the use of the term 'cis' if you are happy to use the term 'trans'. Off you pop to that other thread if you wish to rant.

Why should you be allowed to post drivel like 'sex assigned at birth' because there is a thread on the subject elsewhere? 

[ProfessorDavey]

Why should you be allowed to post drivel like 'sex assigned at birth' because there is a thread on the subject elsewhere?

All I am doing is using a standard term with its standard definition. If you have an issue with that then I suggest you take it up with those who have defined 'cis' and 'trans' as such.

[Nearly Sane]

All I am doing is using a standard term with its standard definition. If you have an issue with that then I suggest you take it up with those who have defined 'cis' and 'trans' as such.

No, I'm taking it up with you using a term that is oppressive in tying in with stereotypes about how a woman is supposed to feel/act. I'm taking it up with you for drivelling on about unscientific nonsense as reifying gender. I'm taking it up with you for using empty headed phrases like 'assigned sex at birth'.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I'm taking it up with you using a term that is oppressive in tying in with stereotypes about how a woman is supposed to feel/act. I'm taking it up with you for drivelling on about unscientific nonsense as reifying gender. I'm taking it up with you for using empty headed phrases like 'assigned sex at birth'.

Yeah - whatever.

Would you like to return to the topic of this thread NS?

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah - whatever.

Would you like to return to the topic of this thread NS?

So you are suggesting that you should be allowed to post sexist nonscientific pish on a thread unchallenged because it wasn't the original topic. Not going to happen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why an institution provides and denies rights on the basis of innate characteristics is a different matter, and is neither here nor there for this purpose. Whether it’s the KKK or the bus company though that denies rights to black people makes no difference. 

That’s why it’s a good analogy.

Your god is, yes – and so is the church that’s doing what it thinks this supposed god wants (though the god and churches of other Christians apparently aren’t). Yet again though, the point is that you espouse an institution that provides certain rights to straight people and denies the same rights to gay people. You can dance around why it acts homophobically all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does.

Which is the point.

No one is born with an innate desire to stride past a registry office, two Methodist churches, a friends meeting house, a Humanist whatdyamacallit, to get to a priest to force him to say words he doesn’t mean on the most important occasion of their lives, Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No one is born with an innate desire to stride past a registry office, two Methodist churches, a friends meeting house, a Humanist whatdyamacallit, to get to a priest to force him to say words he doesn’t mean on the most important occasion of their lives, Hillside.

And no-one is born with an innate desire to stride past a bus station to get to a driver to force him to let them sit at the front of his bus.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or is that really the limit of your ability to reason?

Again: if institutions provide services to some but deny them to others on the grounds of innate characteristics - sex, age, colour, sexual orientation etc – then those institutions are misogynistic, ageist, racist, homophobic, whatever. After endless diversions, your only defence left seems to be, "yeah OK the church I espouse is homophobic, but so is my god and he is my god so, you know, that's ok then." 

Not a good look is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And no-one is born with an innate desire to stride past a bus station to get to a driver to force him to let them sit at the front of his bus.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or is that really the limit of your ability to reason?

Again: if institutions provide services to some but deny them to others on the grounds of innate characteristics - sex, age, colour, sexual orientation etc – then those institutions are misogynistic, ageist, racist, homophobic, whatever. After endless diversions, your only defence left seems to be, "yeah OK the church I espouse is homophobic, but so is my god and he is my god so, you know, that's ok then." 

Not a good look is it?

And again. How are you going to get people who don’t believe in same sex holy matrimony, to mouth words they don’t agree to and more to the point how are you going to force same sex couples to endure such a pantomime.

Be clear as to the process by which this will be brought about and policed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And again. How are you going to get people who don’t believe in same sex holy matrimony, to mouth words they don’t agree to and more to the point how are you going to force same sex couples to endure such a pantomime.

Be clear as to the process by which this will be brought about and policed.

FFS, what the hell is wrong with you? How we should fix a problem IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT MATTER FROM WHETHER IT IS A PROBLEM. Capiche? Something? Anything?

If you think your homophobc god and your homophobic church are fine, then say so.

If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine but it would be too hard to fix the problem so better to leave well alone, then say so.

If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine, and that come to think of it the problems with remedying institutionalised racism, sexism, ageism etc were just as daunting in their day but were tackled reasonably successfully nonetheless so why not give it a go with this problem too - then just say so.

Either way, just stop fucking around with endless diversions and for once in your life try at least to deal with an issue head on.   

[Spud]

Spud,

You’re missing the point here. If your allow rights to some people but deny the same rights to other people solely on the grounds of their innate characteristics – race, age, gender, sexual orientation etc – then you’re practicing racism, ageism, misogyny, homophobia etc.

Why someone does that is a different matter entirely.

The 'right' in question is the right to a marriage service for two people of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right, unless they are underage/already married.

[Aruntraveller]

The 'right' in question is the right to a marriage service for two people of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right, unless they are underage/already married.

And again we come back to the right in question is the right for white people to sit at the front of the bus.

Carry on with the prejudice, I'm feeling the love.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

The 'right' in question is the right to a marriage service for two people of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right, unless they are underage/already married.

Still missing it. As Trent has said, you may as well argue that the 'right' in question is the right to a seat at the front of the bus for white people. Everyone has that right, unless they are not white.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

FFS, what the hell is wrong with you? How we should fix a problem IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT MATTER FROM WHETHER IT IS A PROBLEM. Capiche? Something? Anything?

If you think your homophobc god and your homophobic church are fine, then say so.

If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine but it would be too hard to fix the problem so better to leave well alone, then say so.

If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine, and that come to think of it the problems with remedying institutionalised racism, sexism, ageism etc were just as daunting in their day but were tackled reasonably successfully nonetheless so why not give it a go with this problem too - then just say so.

Either way, just stop fucking around with endless diversions and for once in your life try at least to deal with an issue head on.

I think we all know what we would be forced to do if we believed as you do and wanted to do something about it Hillside. Unfortunately there are those of us who do not think we are perpetrating an act of homophobia but believe that holy matrimony is gender important and numerically specific. That what is happening in a partnership between a man and a woman is distinct from other patterns of matrimony, most of which, we recognise. In concentrating on that, I let those who hold to the other models service their own preferred model and effectively forget about them.
In the model I hold to I think that a marriage of different sexes is the bigger challenge because of the biological, psychological and sociological space. I may change my view but that is more likely to come about through experience, revelation and review of scripture rather than any guffology from a ranting antitheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And again we come back to the right in question is the right for white people to sit at the front of the bus.

Carry on with the prejudice, I'm feeling the love.

I do love you Trent. Is this a case of I can only love you if I hold the same view of marriage
Rather than a live and let live attitude?

[Gordon]

And again. How are you going to get people who don’t believe in same sex holy matrimony, to mouth words they don’t agree to and more to the point how are you going to force same sex couples to endure such a pantomime.

Be clear as to the process by which this will be brought about and policed.

We could adjust equality legislation, so that it applies across the wedding industry, by outlawing discriminatory practices.

That should have been done when same-sex marriage was legislated for, and while we can applaud the UK government for bringing forward the legislation in England & Wales but we can despair that they fudged the equality aspect by allowing the Church of England and the Church in Wales exemption from being able to conduct religious same-sex marriages - thereby rubber stamping their institutional homophobia.

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/sexuality-same-sex-marriage-cofe/

Alternatively the Christian religious sector could move on from getting their social attitudes interpreted from old books written in antiquity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We could adjust equality legislation, so that it applies across the wedding industry, by outlawing discriminatory practices.

That should have been done when same-sex marriage was legislated for, and while we can applaud the UK government for bringing forward the legislation in England & Wales but we can despair that they fudged the equality aspect by allowing the Church of England and the Church in Wales exemption from being able to conduct religious same-sex marriages - thereby rubber stamping their institutional homophobia.

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/sexuality-same-sex-marriage-cofe/

Alternatively the Christian religious sector could move on from getting their social attitudes interpreted from old books written in antiquity.

There we go.
Owning up to a massive programme of religious persecution wasn’t thar hard. Was it.

[Anchorman]

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. 
   

   




What 'institution'?
A pastor's responsibility is to ALL those under their care. Does that pastor sacrifice the unity of the flock in order to help someone who wishes to change the direction of the flock?