Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you don't like it? If you're perfectly free to ignore some parts of the bible (explain away, re-interpret, or whatever you want to call it) why cling to others when it's clearly discriminatory?

And you are free not to admit that until recently Gay Marriage was a non issue. Unlike slavery and genocide.
This isn't a clinging issue for me this is a linguistic totalitarian issue for you.

[Stranger]

And you are free not to admit that until recently Gay Marriage was a non issue.

Why would I not admit it? Marriage may be recent but the discrimination against gay people has been an issue for a lot longer.

Unlike slavery and genocide.

Drivel. They clearly didn't bother people much in biblical times. Slavery (not to mention racism and violence against minorities) clearly didn't bother many Christians much more recently.

This isn't a clinging issue for me this is a linguistic totalitarian issue for you.

Laughable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am not settled on this…

Not settled on what – whether to keep claiming to be non-homophobic, or to decide that your god (who by your own description is homophobic) is right after all?   

…and you have less skin in this issue than you would have your performance suggest…

Irrelevant.

…but you have to admit no where is gay holy matrimony mentioned in the bible or anywhere else for that matter.

And nor does it mention abortion, euthanasia or climate change. More to the point though, I don’t have to “admit” that at all – you do though if you think not mentioning something makes it unholy, and thus you must accept too that you worship a homophobic god. This is your problem remember, not mine. 

Matrimony refers universally to a contract involving a man and a woman and that was it. A harmless label up until weaponisation by certain people. Now to me the argument that Christians cannot claim copywrite over the term marriage is well made. But to expect an antitheists view to be snapped to by God or others is a matter of linguistic totalitarianism. In other words, Why should we accept antitheistic ruling on what is holy.

That isn't supporting guys that is just wishing to punk the Church.

Incoherent gibberish.

Now about our skin in the game. I am married to a lady and you have too. We have therefore no experience of being a gay Christian considering marriage…

Still irrelevant.

…and since this is a matter between the individual and God…

Very funny. What it’s actually about is you claiming to be non-homophobic and at the same time also asserting there to be an inerrant god who is homophobic.

Which side of the fence are you on then – yours or your god’s?

…logically an atheist has the least understanding of the process and probably doesn't care about personal feelings in the matter anyway.

There’s no logic in that nonsense at all.

Look, as you just ran away from it last time here are the premises I posted:

1. You believe there to be something you call “god”.

2. You believe this god to be morally inerrant.

3. You believe this god determines what is and isn’t “holy”.

4. You believe that one of the positions this god has decided to be holy is that homosexual people should be denied holy matrimony, but heterosexual people should not.

5. You understand that discriminating on the ground of same-sex attraction is homophobic.
   
6. You worship this god.

7. You claim to be non-homophobic.

Based on the (albeit incoherent, vague, self-contradictory and often inconsistently expressed) things you’ve said here in the past your answers to all these questions is “yes” right? 

That being the case, once again – who’s right about this then would you say: non-homophobic you or your homophobic god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not settled on what – whether to keep claiming to be non-homophobic, or to decide that your god (who by your own description is homophobic) is right after all?   

Irrelevant.

And nor does it mention abortion, euthanasia or climate change. More to the point though, I don’t have to “admit” that at all – you do though if you think not mentioning something makes it unholy, and thus you must accept too that you worship a homophobic god. This is your problem remember, not mine. 

Incoherent gibberish.

Still irrelevant.

Very funny. What it’s actually about is you claiming to be non-homophobic and at the same time also asserting there to be an inerrant god who is homophobic.

Which side of the fence are you on then – yours or your god’s?

There’s no logic in that nonsense at all.

Look, as you just ran away from it last time here are the premises I posted:

1. You believe there to be something you call “god”.

2. You believe this god to be morally inerrant.

3. You believe this god determines what is and isn’t “holy”.

4. You believe that one of the positions this god has decided to be holy is that homosexual people should be denied holy matrimony, but heterosexual people should not.

5. You understand that discriminating on the ground of same-sex attraction is homophobic.
   
6. You worship this god.

7. You claim to be non-homophobic.

Based on the (albeit incoherent, vague, self-contradictory and often inconsistently expressed) things you’ve said here in the past your answers to all these questions is “yes” right? 

That being the case, once again – who’s right about this then would you say: non-homophobic you or your homophobic god?

Let me make my position clear. Should guys be allowed marriage. Of course, Christianity has no copywrite.
Do I believe your prime concern in redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia, yes.

What then is hard to understand about my position?
Also why do you keep saying that I accept that God is homophobic or even that your definition is valid ?

[Spud]

Let me make my position clear. Should guys be allowed marriage. Of course, Christianity has no copywrite.
Do I believe your prime concern in redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia, yes.

What then is hard to understand about my position?
Also why do you keep saying that I accept that God is homophobic or even that your definition is valid ?

"redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia"
Well done

[Nearly Sane]

"redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia"
Well done

Is someone who has gay sex committing a 'sin'?

[Anchorman]

Is someone who has gay sex committing a 'sin'?

 




It is my understanding that sex outside marriage is sin.

[SteveH]

It is my understanding that sex outside marriage is sin.

Mine too, but it all depends on how you define marriage. I'd say that any life-long (at least by intention), loving, mutually serving, faithful relationship is a marriage, whether or not formalised in a religious or civil ceremony, and whatever the sex of the partners (and perhaps even their number: I don't see any fundamental objection to group marriages).

[Gordon]

Let me make my position clear. Should guys be allowed marriage. Of course, Christianity has no copywrite.

Super: then we are agreed that marriage is a social construct and, therefore, varies accordingly.

Do I believe your prime concern in redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia, yes.

No doubt; but that would be misrepresenting what others have said.

What then is hard to understand about my position?

Just about everything, since your 'position' is invariably one of evasive incoherence.

Also why do you keep saying that I accept that God is homophobic or even that your definition is valid ?

It is the definition of marriage that some of you 'God' enthusiasts adopt that you should review, Vlad. You talked of 'holy marriage' earlier, thereby implying that the conditions for this 'holy marriage' are determined by this 'God', and we're told by 'God' enthusiasts that 'God' doesn't agree with same-sex marriage: and that is overt discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which leads to the conclusion that 'God' (and it's representatives) are homophobic in that they seek to restrict access to marriage in line with their religious superstitions.
 

[Aruntraveller]

 




It is my understanding that sex outside marriage is sin.

Yes. Set the rules and then don't allow some people to play by them. All very fair and equal.

[Nearly Sane]

 




It is my understanding that sex outside marriage is sin.

So you, Spud, and Vlad,  want to treat gay and lesbian people differently, because even if they are covil married, you still think they sin. Smells like homophobia to me

[Nearly Sane]

Can we please quit with this tactic. It does two things: it seeks to stifle the discussion and it cheapens the term.

You can do whatever you want. I'm not seeking to stifle discussion. That's just your opinion
 And if you think that treating homosexuals differently just because they are homosexual isn't homophobia, then I think you don't understand the term.

[Spud]

Is someone who has gay sex committing a 'sin'?

Yes, and Leviticus makes the distinction between that and adultery. By redefining the word 'marriage' to include two of the same-sex you're blurring that distinction

[Aruntraveller]

Yes, and Leviticus makes the distinction between that and adultery. By redefining the word 'marriage' to include two of the same-sex you're blurring that distinction

Back to Leviticus. Really?

https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in-leviticus-and-their-penalties.html

Hope you are following all these rules.

Now you are going to come out with some pathetic bollocks to explain why some of these no longer apply, but the one on gay sex does. Don't bother. You are just cherry picking to justify your prejudice.

And on a purely pedantic note:

  Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman”

How can I do that? Any man I have sex with doesn't have a vagina. So that rule is null and void.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you, Spud, and Vlad,  want to treat gay and lesbian people differently, because even if they are covil married, you still think they sin. Smells like homophobia to me

There are churches where gay people are able to be married. What's your difficulty?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, and Leviticus makes the distinction between that and adultery. By redefining the word 'marriage' to include two of the same-sex you're blurring that distinction

So homophobia. Btw how hard can you beat a slave?

[Nearly Sane]

There are churches where gay people are able to be married. What's your difficulty?

That you think they shouldn't be married in your church. If you were a baker and wouldn't serve gay people, it's not a defence to say the baker across the road will serve them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you think they shouldn't be married in your church. If you were a baker and wouldn't serve gay people, it's not a defence to say the baker across the road will serve them.

I am not against Gay Marriage and the idea of Gay holy matrimony you seem to be using is a construct by
Linguistic totalitarianism. A condition which is most definitely sinful.

If by baking a cake you mean changing gods mind or automatically knowing God's mind you already know what
I Feel about  about that. So not so much won't bake a cake more don't bake cakes and don't have what you want in stock.

[Nearly Sane]

I am not against Gay Marriage and the idea of Gay holy matrimony you seem to be using is a construct by
Linguistic totalitarianism. A condition which is most definitely sinful.

If by baking a cake you mean changing gods mind or automatically knowing God's mind you already know what
I Feel about  about that. So not so much won't bake a cake more don't bake cakes and don't have what you want in stock.

You don't want homosexual marriage in your church.
The baker analogy shows why saying they can get married elsewhere doesb't work.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't want homosexual marriage in your church.
The baker analogy shows why saying they can get married elsewhere doesb't work.

Nope. I made the suggestion that civil marriage could be performed ......on church property by clergy without the religious paraphenalia and the proceeds go to tvangeliism.

Also it occurs to me that I would as a baker serve gay people so on that score your cake analogy is shaky.

[Gordon]

Nope. I made the suggestion that civil marriage could be performed ......on church property by clergy without the religious paraphenalia and the proceeds go to tvangeliism.

So you did, and Anchorman pointed out that in Scotland clergy cannot conduct non-religious/civil marriages.

I take it you have established that elsewhere in the UK clergy can indeed conduct civil marriages in religious settings and that said clergy would be willing, or be allowed, to conduct these: I asked you this earlier but you never addressed the questions, which makes me wonder if your are making ill-informed assumptions. So, are you certain, and provided what you suggested can actually happen, that those opting for a civil marriage would be prepared to pay fees that would then be used to evangelise?

I'm sure you'll have done a spot of due diligence before you announced your scheme, so you should be in a position to conform that your above suggestion is a practical proposition.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope. I made the suggestion that civil marriage could be performed ......on church property by clergy without the religious paraphenalia and the proceeds go to tvangeliism.

Also it occurs to me that I would as a baker serve gay people so on that score your cake analogy is shaky.

Fuck knows what you are saying with your first paragraph.

Your last sentence misses the point entirely. The point is that your 'argument' that gay people can get married elsewhere does nothing to cover your homophobia. That baker Vlad would bake a cake for gay people doesn't stop the fact that religious Vlad does not want gay people to be married in his homophobic church.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fuck knows what you are saying with your first paragraph.

Your last sentence misses the point entirely. The point is that your 'argument' that gay people can get married elsewhere does nothing to cover your homophobia. That baker Vlad would bake a cake for gay people doesn't stop the fact that religious Vlad does not want gay people to be married in his homophobic church.

And again how am I homophobic if until very recently no one talked about gay marriage let alone gay holy matrimony and the declaration of homophobia is based on an act of Linguistic imperialism? Would I let gatsby married by a clergyman. Yes a clergyman could preside over a civil marriage and there are churches which will marry gay people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you did, and Anchorman pointed out that in Scotland clergy cannot conduct non-religious/civil marriages.

I take it you have established that elsewhere in the UK clergy can indeed conduct civil marriages in religious settings and that said clergy would be willing, or be allowed, to conduct these: I asked you this earlier but you never addressed the questions, which makes me wonder if your are making ill-informed assumptions. So, are you certain, and provided what you suggested can actually happen, that those opting for a civil marriage would be prepared to pay fees that would then be used to evangelise?

I'm sure you'll have done a spot of due diligence before you announced your scheme, so you should be in a position to conform that your above suggestion is a practical proposition.

Due diligence? I think you might be mistaking this discussion and opinion forum for something more serious it is an opinion.

[Gordon]

Due diligence? I think you might be mistaking this discussion and opinion forum for something more serious it is an opinion.

Which is you running away from your own badly thought through 'suggestion' (in your #40, in case you've forgotten).