Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Let me make my position clear.

You already have: you claim to be non-homophobic, but at the same time you tell us you believe in an inerrant god who is is homophobic.

Should guys be allowed marriage. Of course, Christianity has no copywrite.

It’s “copyright”, and by “marriage” what you’re actually saying is “one type of marriage” right? 

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

There is no redefinition.

You’ve told us you think there’s something you call “god” (your word).

You’ve told us that this god decides what is an isn’t “holy” (your word).

You’ve told us that this includes only some types of marriage being “holy matrimony” (your words). 

You’ve told us that that this god “discriminates” (your word) against gay people by denying them holy matrimony.

Here’s Wiki om homophobia:

“Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination…”

Discrimination on the ground of sexual orinatioan is homophobic. That’s what the word means. You believe (according to your words) in a homophobic god. QED

What then is hard to understand about my position?

How you reconcile your claimed non-homophobia with your worship of a homophobic god.

Also why do you keep saying that I accept that God is homophobic…

Because you keep telling us he is in your description of him.

…or even that your definition is valid ?

Because discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is homophobic. That’s what the word means. You can twist in the wind about this as much as you like, but it won’t go away.

So again, who’s right: you for being non-homophobic, or your (according to you) homophobic god?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

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

Wrong. It's Vlad who's trying to redefine the word by carving out from it the discrimination part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Our bus company allows back people to sit at the back. Some other bus companies allow black people to sit wherever they like. What’s your difficulty? 

[Aruntraveller]

Blue

I think Muphry's Law just struck home on your, otherwise, excellent post.

It’s “copyright”, and by “marriage” what you’re actually saying is “one type of marriage” right?

Discriminate on the grounds of sexual orinatioan is homophobic

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trent,

I think Muphry's Law just struck home on your, otherwise, excellent post.

Thanks. I plead typo though M'lud rather than not knowing how to spell the word!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You already have: you claim to be non-homophobic, but at the same time you tell us you believe in an inerrant god who is is homophobic.

It’s “copyright”, and by “marriage” what you’re actually saying is “one type of marriage” right? 

There is no redefinition.

You’ve told us you think there’s something you call “god” (your word).

You’ve told us that this god decides what is an isn’t “holy” (your word).

You’ve told us that this includes only some types of marriage being “holy matrimony” (your words). 

You’ve told us that that this god “discriminates” (your word) against gay people by denying them holy matrimony.

Here’s Wiki om homophobia:

“Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination…”

Discriminate on the grounds of sexual orinatioan is homophobic. That’s what the word means. You believe (according to your words) in a homophobic god. QED

How you reconcile your claimed non-homophobia with your worship of a homophobic god. Which of you do you think is right about that?

Because you keep telling us he is in your description of him.

Because discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is homophobic. That’s what the word means. You can twist in the wind about this as much as you like, but it won’t go away.

So again, who’s right: you for being non-homophobic, or your (according to you) homophobic god?

Historically, No one, gays included thought that marriage was anything other ,in the context of relationships thought holy matrimony meant anything more than the union of one man and woman and this is true universally of marriage. Historically then no animus between anyone on this score.

When gay marriage became a thing those people who invented and popularised the idea effectively through a piece of Linguistic piracy also broadened in their own view the meaning of the word homophobic.

Now the argument that Christians have no monopoly on marriage is sound. Therefore if that is sound, neither do word pirates whose main mission is anti religious also do not have a monopoly on marriage and I think the law of the UK recognises this. Regarding holy matrimony since I nor anyone decides that you should,  as faithful Christians have done, take this up with God.
Questions arising from your revisionist historical perspective, should be taken up with the right authorities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Our bus company allows back people to sit at the back. Some other bus companies allow black people to sit wherever they like. What’s your difficulty?

I have no difficulty with "Back people" Sitting at the back of the bus. Or gay people being married.

What I do object to is atheists pirating the language and weaponising homosexuals.
And being monopolistic over what marriage is.

[Roses]

I have no difficulty with "Back people" Sitting at the back of the bus. Or gay people being married.

What I do object to is atheists pirating the language and weaponising homosexuals.
And being monopolistic over what marriage is.

Your posts are nonsensical! 

[Aruntraveller]

I have no difficulty with "Back people" Sitting at the back of the bus.

Err....you do know what you are saying here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Historically, No one, gays included thought that marriage was anything other ,in the context of relationships thought holy matrimony meant anything more than the union of one man and woman and this is true universally of marriage. Historically then no animus between anyone on this score.

Irrelevant, and in any case clearly not true as many societies did and still do practice polygamous marriage. Have a look at "google images", “polygamous marriages” for some nice wedding photos to cheer you up.

When gay marriage became a thing those people who invented and popularised the idea effectively through a piece of Linguistic piracy also broadened in their own view the meaning of the word homophobic.

Utter bollocks. It became a “thing” as some societies developed to think that discriminatory practices are indefensible. The same happened with the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women etc – both of which were previously the Zeitgeist too.     

Now the argument that Christians have no monopoly on marriage is sound.

And irrelevant.

Therefore if that is sound, neither do word pirates whose main mission is anti religious also do not have a monopoly on marriage and I think the law of the UK recognises this.

Gibberish.

Regarding holy matrimony since I nor anyone decides that you should,  as faithful Christians have done, take this up with God.

A homophobic god is your claim, not mine. I merely ask how you square that belief with your claim to be non-homophobic. So far, answer have I none.

Questions arising from your revisionist historical perspective, should be taken up with the right authorities.

There haven’t been any. So again:

You’ve told us you think there’s something you call “god” (your word).

You’ve told us that this god decides what is an isn’t “holy” (your word).

You’ve told us that this includes only some types of marriage being “holy matrimony” (your words).

You’ve told us that that this god “discriminates” (your word) against gay people by denying them holy matrimony.

Here’s Wiki on homophobia:

“Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination…”

Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is homophobic. That’s what the word means, and you don't have the right to redefine it because it doesnt suit you. You believe therefore (according to your words) in a homophobic god. QED

So once more, who’s right: you for being non-homophobic, or your (according to you) homophobic god?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have no difficulty with "Back people" Sitting at the back of the bus. Or gay people being married.

Fuck me - when you miss the point you really go all in don’t you. The point here is that black people could sit only at the back (because the seats at the front were denied to them); gay people can have only “non-holy” marriage (because the “holy” version is denied to them). 

What I do object to is atheists pirating the language…

The only person who’s tried to “pirate” the language here is you.

…and weaponising homosexuals.

Which no-one has done.

And being monopolistic over what marriage is.

Which no-one has done either. Have as many types of marriage as you like – holy, not holy, monogamous, polygamous, knock yourself out - I don't care at all. What this is about though is you claiming on the one hand to be non-homophobic, while at the same time defending denying marriage of a certain type to people of one sexual orientation.

You know, just like denying bus travel of a certain type to people of one skin colour.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Fuck me -

I usually expect dinner and a show first.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I usually expect dinner and a show first.

But not holy matrimony? Sinner!

[Spud]

Spud,

Wrong. It's Vlad who's trying to redefine the word by carving out from it the discrimination part.

Ah, what I thought Vlad meant was that people have redefined the word marriage so that instead of meaning man and woman it means person and person. So then anyone who doesn't agree with the new definition is deemed homophobic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Ah, what I thought Vlad meant was that people have redefined the word marriage, so that anyone who doesn't agree with the new definition is deemed homophobic.

No. He's basically claiming to be not homophobic while at the same time also espousing a homophobic faith belief. His cheat is to claim that others are redefining the term "homophobia", whereas in fact he's the one doing the redefining (presumably because he doesn't like what its actual meaning says about his beliefs).
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spud,

No. He's basically claiming to be not homophobic while at the same time also espousing a homophobic faith belief. His cheat is to claim that others are redefining the term "homophobia", whereas in fact he's the one doing the redefining (presumably because he doesn't like what its actual meaning says about his beliefs).
   

Homophobia means fear of the same although fear of homosexuality or homosexuals would probably stand.
And yet in your opinion and going by the meaning I have just outlined a homophobic god is afraid of homosexuality. Why should God be afraid of anything?

Now it is obvious that some jiggery poker has to happen for a fear of homosexuality to become discrimination  against homosexuals just as there has to be jiggery pokery in changing the term holy matrimony from what THE CHURCH CALLS THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, INTO an act of violence against gay people.

So I call heavy duty word repurposing here.

To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of HOLY matrimony and someone gets up and shouts start extending holy matrimony to gays you bloody homophones.
Just for the hell of it.

For the record there are churches and priests who will celebrate gay matrimony.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Homophobia means fear of the same although fear of homosexuality or homosexuals would probably stand.
And yet in your opinion and going by the meaning I have just outlined a homophobic god is afraid of homosexuality. Why should God be afraid of anything?

Now it is obvious that some jiggery poker has to happen for a fear of homosexuality to become discrimination  against homosexuals just as there has to be jiggery pokery in changing the term holy matrimony from what THE CHURCH CALLS THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, INTO an act of violence against gay people.

So I call heavy duty word repurposing here.

I did wonder whether you’d scuttle into this evasive fuckwittery rather than actually engage with your (or your god’s) homophobia and sure enough you couldn’t resist could you. Yes, the root of the word “phobia” is from the Greek meaning “fear of”. It has never though meant just “fear of”, and has always encompassed “prejudice against” too. Here’s a Wiki article to educate you about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Origin_of_the_term 

To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of HOLY matrimony and someone gets up and shouts start extending holy matrimony to gays you bloody homophones.
Just for the hell of it.

“The whole world” excluding gay people presumably?

Statement 1:

To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of slavery and someone gets up and shouts start extending freedom to slaves.

Just for the hell of it.

Statement 2:

To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of women not having the vote and someone gets up and shouts start extending voting to women. 

Just for the hell of it.

Can you see anything wrong with these statements?

For the record there are churches and priests who will celebrate gay holy matrimony.

For the record there were bus companies and drivers that did let black people ride at the front of the bus too. And?

Look, you can keep twisting in the wind as much as you like about this but it still comes down to a simple question: do you think it’s morally fine to deny rights to gay people that you wouldn’t deny to straight people solely on the basis of sexual orientation?

If your answer is “yes”, you’re a homophobe (as is your god); if your answer is “no”, then it’s just your god who’s the homophobe.

I’m fully aware that you’ll never, ever answer a question but it’s still your question to answer nonetheless.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I did wonder whether you’d scuttle into this evasive fuckwittery rather than actually engage with your (or your god’s) homophobia and sure enough you couldn’t resist could you. Yes, the root of the word “phobia” is from the Greek meaning “fear of”. It has never though meant just “fear of”, and has always encompassed “prejudice against” too. Here’s a Wiki article to educate you about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Origin_of_the_term 

“The whole world” excluding gay people presumably?

Statement 1:

To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of slavery and someone gets up and shouts start extending freedom to slaves.

Just for the hell of it.

Statement 2:

To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of women not having the vote and someone gets up and shouts start extending voting to women. 

Just for the hell of it.

Can you see anything wrong with these statements?

For the record there were bus companies and drivers that did let black people ride at the front of the bus too. And?

Look, you can keep twisting in the wind as much as you like about this but it still comes down to a simple question: do you think it’s morally fine to deny rights to gay people that you wouldn’t deny to straight people solely on the basis of sexual orientation?

If your answer is “yes”, you’re a homophobe (as is your god); if your answer is “no”, then it’s just your god who’s the homophobe.

I’m fully aware that you’ll never, ever answer a question but it’s still your question to answer nonetheless.

Cakes, bakers, buses,bad analogy.

I think we can agree that there is more than one model of marriage. The universal traditional models include man/ woman, men/women and man/women. The Christian model is a version of this universal tradition whereby a man and a woman take up the challenge of a partnership consisting partly of sociological, psychological and biological distinctiveness and difference which involves God at all stages.I think we can agree tthat this model holds no de facto monopoly on or claim to  a definitive description or soul model of matrimony. Therefore I feel free to accept the notion of same sex marriage which is a gender neutral model. You are now claiming that this should have the monopoly.

[Spud]

To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of slavery and someone gets up and shouts start extending freedom to slaves.

That's interesting, given the Israelite practice of owning slaves.

When the early Church began shaking off the Old Covenant regulations they stipulated that those involving idolatry and sexual immorality remained in place for all time (Acts 15).

[Aruntraveller]

Acts also stipulated every man should be circumcised.

Acts 15:1-6: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

Elsewhere in the Bible (Corinthians, Galatians) that is contradicted. So why should Acts be correct on one issue and incorrect on another?

Still picking that cherry I see.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's interesting, given the Israelite practice of owning slaves.

When the early Church began shaking off the Old Covenant regulations they stipulated that those involving idolatry and sexual immorality remained in place for all time (Acts 15).

Thanks for flagging this statement of BHS. There was of course no such universal concensus over the rectitude of slavery not least because the millions in slavery were opposed to it. From the get go Christians were questioning the rectitude of slavery.

[Spud]

Still picking that cherry I see.

Thanks for reminding me - I have got some ripe cherries which need picking!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Acts also stipulated every man should be circumcised.

Acts 15:1-6: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

Elsewhere in the Bible (Corinthians, Galatians) that is contradicted. So why should Acts be correct on one issue and incorrect on another?

Still picking that cherry I see.

Caught cherrypicking yourself because acts describes the events which led to declaring circumcision not to have anything to do with Salvation.

[Gordon]

When the early Church began shaking off the Old Covenant regulations they stipulated that those involving idolatry and sexual immorality remained in place for all time (Acts 15).

So what?

Whatever the "early church" thought about anything isn't binding, and in any event who decided that the views of "early church" on sexual morality were in any sense authoritative?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what?

Whatever the "early church" thought about anything isn't binding, and in any event who decided that the views of "early church" on sexual morality were in any sense authoritative?

The question may be asked of the gender neutral view of marriage