Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

True.

No, early Christians began ending their involvement in slaving. If you say they were the only ones then that is bad news for the argument that christianity automatically supports slavery. or that antislavery was an atheist gift to the world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If this 'church' is in the business of practicing homophobia

That isn't what their business is and you know it. As I say, what is it with atheists and weaponising homosexuality?

[Gordon]

That isn't what their business is and you know it. As I say, what is it with atheists and weaponising homosexuality?

They way they carry out their business results in homophobia, and to point that out is a reasonable and accurate observation.

Why are you defending the indefensible?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, early Christians began ending their involvement in slaving. If you say they were the only ones then that is bad news for the argument that christianity automatically supports slavery. or that antislavery was an atheist gift to the world.

Some "early Christians" may have done that but Christianity as a whole didn't until very late in the day. The point here though is that your, "but for a long time people didn't care about my church's homophobic practices" remains a bad argument for protecting those homophobic practices now. For a long time most people didn't care about lots of things that we now think to be morally reprehensible.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That isn't what their business is and you know it.

My bus company's business isn't racial discrimination - it still does it though.

As I say, what is it with atheists and weaponising homosexuality?

As I say, what is it with non-racists and weaponising race?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Some "early Christians" may have done that but Christianity as a whole didn't until very late in the day.   

The correctness of slavery has been criticised either implicitly or explictly in history. There are no documents concerning same sex marriage which I don't oppose anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Some "early Christians" may have done that 

So then acceptance of slavery hasn't been universal until recently has it?

[ProfessorDavey]

Hillside thinks the law is how it is because the secular Government is in cahoots with the church.

And I think he is correct - governments over decades have tiptoed around religion and been terrified to make them have to uphold the law in the same manner as other organisations. And in doing so they create special privileges for the religious that amount to institutional discrimination against the non religious who are treated less favourably because of their lack of religious belief.

Which is kind of weird as the government also has enacted the equalities act which is supposed to ensure that religious people aren't treated less favourably because of their religious beliefs and that non religious people aren't treated less favourably because of their lack of religious beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

My bus company's business isn't racial discrimination - it still does it though.

As I say, what is it with non-racists and weaponising race?

A better analogy would be atheists and weaponising race. To which the answer would be not, seemingly, as effective a weapon against the church as homosexuality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The correctness of slavery has been criticised either implicitly or explictly in history. There are no documents concerning same sex marriage which I don't oppose anyway.

You have no idea what criticism “either implicitly or explictly in history” there was of same sex marriages, and it’s irrelevant in any case. The point here remains that you espouse a homophobic god and a homophobic church.

What does that make you? 

So then acceptance of slavery hasn't been universal until recently has it?

Nor has the universal acceptance of only heterosexual marriage (which was your claim):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Doesn’t being wrong about everything ever get you down a bit?

A better analogy would be atheists and weaponising race. To which the answer would be not, seemingly, as effective a weapon against the church as homosexuality.

No it wouldn’t. No-one is “weaponising” anything, and your espousal of a homophobic church remains analogous with my espousal of a racist bus company.

Your endless prevarications, distractions, re-definitions, straw men, post facto defences of the indefensible and the rest of armoury of avoidance you deploy to avoid ever addressing the issue head on doesn’t work. You espouse a homophobic god and a homophobic church. Deal with it.     

[jeremyp]

No, early Christians began ending their involvement in slaving.

That's a blatant lie, unless by "early Christian" you mean "Christians living in the 19th century".

Christianity dominated Europe for about 1,500 years before some of them started to think "hey, why are we treating black people worse than animals?"

Christianity and Christian marriage haven't been around for 2,000 years. Don't try to convince us that your concept of "holy matrimony" has been around for longer than that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a blatant lie, unless by "early Christian" you mean "Christians living in the 19th century".

Christianity dominated Europe for about 1,500 years before some of them started to think "hey, why are we treating black people worse than animals?"

Christianity and Christian marriage haven't been around for 2,000 years. Don't try to convince us that your concept of "holy matrimony" has been around for longer than that.

No it isn't. Christians started withdrawing from slavery in the decades after Jesus. It wasn't only Black people who were slaves in the Greco roman hegemony. And yet a standard atheist interpretation is that christianity wrecked the glory that was Rome, the most evil exploiter of humanity probably ever. Greco roman slavery cast a long shadow on the middle ages but Christian bishops are notable in condemning it eg Augustine. The medievel people were not fantastically unanimous about slavery. Does it for instance crop up in that great register of medieval society, The Canterbury Tales for instance.....I'm not sure it does.
Where Black slavery arises on an industrial scale and on industrial terms is after the start of the so called enlightenment.

In terms of matrimony I have said Christians don't have a monopoly on that term.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Yes thanks for that corrective, I had a look at this and sure enough there seems to be same sex marriage going on in ancient mesopotamia.

The next occasion is a handful of same sex marriages in the imperial eschelon of Rome. Cited is the emperor who married his slave. Given the reputation of the emperors for doing everything and anything and contrary to social mores I noticed the Roman conditions of marriage or Conubis which seems to favour monogamy between a male citizen and a female citizen. Unfortunately roman emperors are not known for being great ambassadors for pretty much any behaviour and could put a curse on anything as some reckoned Constantine did with Christianity.

And after that, the same sex marriage trail seems to grow cold. In fact, for something innate it seems to have long extremely long absences and localised appearences.

[Aruntraveller]

Walt as far as I can see you have put yourself in the ridiculous place of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

"I want gay people to be able to get married."  ALSO  "I want the Church to be able to discriminate against gay people in the matter of marriage".

That's it, that is what this whole thread is about.

You have to get off that fence.

If for no other reason than it must be pretty dammed uncomfortable by now.

The whole thread reminds me of dead horses and dogs with bones.

Jeez.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trent,

Walt as far as I can see you have put yourself in the ridiculous place of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

"I want gay people to be able to get married."  ALSO  "I want the Church to be able to discriminate against gay people in the matter of marriage".

That's it, that is what this whole thread is about.

You have to get off that fence.

If for no other reason than it must be pretty dammed uncomfortable by now.

Pretty much. He's trying to play the, "homophobic? Wot me? How very dare you - I'm all for gay people getting married to each other" card, while at the same time also playing the, "by "married", I don't of course mean the version of it I think is "holy" - oh no Sirree, that type's for the straights only thank you very much" card. It's not so much that he's sitting on the fence as trying to position himself simultaneously on both sides of it - he's Schrödinger's homophobe.   

The whole thread reminds me of dead horses and dogs with bones.

Jeez.

Well yes - that's when you get when someone tries endless diversionary tactics rather than address the issue head on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Walt as far as I can see you have put yourself in the ridiculous place of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

"I want gay people to be able to get married."  ALSO  "I want the Church to be able to discriminate against gay people in the matter of marriage".

That's it, that is what this whole thread is about.

You have to get off that fence.

If for no other reason than it must be pretty dammed uncomfortable by now.

The whole thread reminds me of dead horses and dogs with bones.

Jeez.

The Church in Sweden have found that they can accommodate same sex church marriages.
Not being a Swedish clergyman or church goer and not having been moved to consider the issue since accepting that Christianity has no monopoly on marriage or exclusive rights to it. I have not been privy to any revelation they have received. I say revelation because church weddings are not a secular matter.

I accept the Church of Sweden’s decision.
At this point apparently the Swedish prime minister put his oar in and questioned why any clergy were allowed not to take part in same sex weddings.

Did he reveal the beauty of his innermost anti homophobe or his inner angry frustrated antitheist totalitarian I wonder?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have not been privy to any revelation they have received.

"Revelation" is an unqualified faith claim, not a verifiable premise. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The Church in Sweden have found that they can accommodate same sex church marriages.
Not being a Swedish clergyman or church goer and not having been moved to consider the issue since accepting that Christianity has no monopoly on marriage or exclusive rights to it. I have not been privy to any revelation they have received. I say revelation because church weddings are not a secular matter.

I accept the Church of Sweden’s decision.
At this point apparently the Swedish prime minister put his oar in and questioned why any clergy were allowed not to take part in same sex weddings.

Did he reveal the beauty of his innermost anti homophobe or his inner angry frustrated antitheist totalitarian I wonder?

The bus company in Sweden has found that it can accommodate different races sitting wherever they wish.

Not being a Swedish bus driver or passenger and not having been moved to consider the issue since accepting that my racist bus company has no monopoly on seating rules or exclusive rights to it. I have not been privy to any revelation they have received. I say revelation because racist bus services are not a secular matter.

I accept the Swedish bus company’s decision.

At this point apparently the Swedish prime minister put his oar in and questioned why any bus drivers were allowed not to take part in driving the buses.

Did he reveal the beauty of his innermost anti-racism or his inner angry frustrated antiracist totalitarian I wonder?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trent,

Pretty much. He's trying to play the, "homophobic? Wot me? How very dare you - I'm all for gay people getting married to each other" card, while at the same time also playing the, "by "married", I don't of course mean the version of it I think is "holy" - oh no Sirree, that type's for the straights only thank you very much" card. It's not so much that he's sitting on the fence as trying to position himself simultaneously on both sides of it - he's Schrödinger's homophobe.   

Well yes - that's when you get when someone tries endless diversionary tactics rather than address the issue head on.

OK Hillside. Being probably this forums most celebrated, vehement, persistent, anti religious contributor. Do you believe that gender neutral wedding are a) holy b) involve God at any stage ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK Hillside being probably this forums most celebrated, vehement, persistent, anti religious contributor. Do you believe that gender neutral wedding are a) holy b) involve God at any stage ?

As an atheist, clearly I don't believe there to be such things as "holy" or "God" at all. That though isn't the point here - the point is that you do believe these things (albeit for very bad reasons), and thus you espouse a homophobic god story and the consequent homophobic church practices.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As an atheist, clearly I don't believe there to be such things as "holy" or "God" at all. That though isn't the point here - the point is that you do believe these things (albeit for very bad reasons), and thus you espouse a homophobic god story and the consequent homophobic church practices.

A homophobic god story? I don’t think so, I think there are those who are in a same sex marriage who may be atheist but God is still with them. But of course being an affable chap married to an affable chap (or chappessis)in an extremely affable marriage carries no sociological, psychological or biological difference or challenge. Of course then same sex marriage is different from one man and woman as is polygamous sex. Same sex marriages also arise from love (so I am not against that) and not in anyway out of a desire to be the embodiment of a secular definition of equality.

As you can see this description of where I stand on matrimony makes your argument, as a heterosexual white middle aged middle class conventionally married anti-theistic male look positively opportunistic and parasitic on homosexual marriage

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A homophobic god story? I don’t think so,…

That’s not your choice to make. You’ve told us that you think there’s something you call “god”, that this god delineates some things as “holy”, and that one version of marriages is thus described.

You’ve also told us that this god wants his earthly helpers to “discriminate” (your word) by making this special service available to straight people but to deny it to gay people.

The meaning of the word “homophobia” includes discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation.   

QED. Slam dunk. Game over. Your god story is homophobic, and so are your church’s officials.

I think there are those who are in a same sex marriage who may be atheist but God is still with them. But of course being an affable chap married to an affable chap (or chappessis)in an extremely affable marriage carries no sociological, psychological or biological difference or challenge. Of course then same sex marriage is different from one man and woman as is polygamous sex. Same sex marriages also arise from love (so I am not against that) and not in anyway out of a desire to be the embodiment of a secular definition of equality.

All irrelevant (with a category error included).

As you can see this description of where I stand on matrimony makes your argument, as a heterosexual white middle aged middle class conventionally married anti-theistic male look positively opportunistic and parasitic on homosexual marriage

No it doesn’t. Your “stand on matrimony” is precisely analogous to my racist bus company owner’s stand on seating rules. Being relaxed about what other churches/bus companies do doesn't change that. No matter how much you keep twisting in the wind, you still espouse a homophobic god story and homophobic church practices. What not try at least to address that?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s not your choice to make. You’ve told us that you think there’s something you call “god”, that this god delineates some things as “holy”, and that one version of marriages is thus described.

You’ve also told us that this god wants his earthly helpers to “discriminate” (your word) by making this special service available to straight people but to deny it to gay people.

The meaning of the word “homophobia” includes discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation.   

QED. Slam dunk. Game over. Your god story is homophobic, and so are your church’s officials.

All irrelevant (with a category error included for good measure).

No it doesn’t. Your “stand on matrimony” is precisely analogous to my racist bus company owner’s stand on seating rules. Being relaxed about what other bus companies do doesn't change that. No matter how much you keep twisting in the wind, you still espouse a homophobic god story and homophobic church practices. What not try at least to address that?   

I think it’s rather the case of God telling us to avoid antitheists kicking of and considering situations with all the aplomb,and professionalism of student politics.

You don’t see gay people in love you see human shillelaghs.

The word homophobia is just camouflage for you.

As for your deliberate attempt at repeating the words racism in order to establish a mental conflation in others. Shocking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think it’s rather the case of God telling us to avoid antitheists kicking of and considering situations with all the aplomb,and professionalism of student politics.

You don’t see gay people in love you see human shillelaghs.

Gibberish.

The word homophobia is just camouflage for you.

No, it’s a word whose meaning has been codified and written down in dictionaries. That you don’t like the implications of that is neither here nor there.

As for your deliberate attempt at repeating the words racism in order to establish a mental conflation in others. Shocking.

It’s called analogy – if you don’t like the use of it, stop trying arguments that are analogous to those of racists. 

Look, as your desperation is showing badly now and you still won’t address the issue here’s what you should say:

“OK Blue, I can see now that the god I’m describing and the church practice I espouse are homophobic. After all, that’s what the word means. I don’t feel instinctively homophobic, but there’s no escaping the conclusion. I can also see that the defences I’ve tried could exactly be used by a racist to defend his practices so this alone should give me pause.

So here are my options: I can either conclude that my god story (or my church’s interpretation of it) is wrong and take a more enlightened view, or I can stick with it and just accept that I’m a proponent of homophobia.”

You're welcome, and I await your decision with interest…     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Hillside bus company is pleased to announce that following its equality programme the ladies toilets at the bus station will have six out of its eight stalls removed to accommodate new urinals.