Vlad,
Cakes, bakers, buses,bad analogy.
No, it's a good analogy. Either you think some rights available to straight people (eg, “holy” matrimony) should be denied to gay people because of sexual orientation or you don’t. The question is analogous to whether you think some rights available to white people (eg sitting at the front of the bus) should be denied to black people on the ground of race.
Your frankly embarrassing defence (“yes, but some churches do allow the full Monty to gay people even though mine doesn’t”) is exposed by the analogy too – you could equally say, “yes, but some bus companies allow black people to sit at the front even though mine doesn’t” as if that somehow made your bus company fine and dandy.
I think we can agree that there is more than one model of marriage.
I’ve said as much several times here.
The universal traditional models include man/ woman, men/women and man/women.
You’ve already been corrected on this – various societies practiced polygamous marriage (and still do) so there’s no universality about it, and in any case so what? Marriage is a human-made construction, not some kind of universal law.
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.
Not according to you it isn’t. “The Christian model” as you put it these days seems to involve some denominations that practice equal “holy” marriage (but not yours), and some that retain their homophobic practices (yours).
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.
Why have you just lied about that? As I said perfectly clearly – have as many types of marriage as you like. I really don’t care, let alone suggest that one of them should have a monopoly. What I am saying though is, regardless of the type of marriage concerned, if you allow it for straight people and deny it to gay people that’s homophobic. Once again therefore: how do you square your claim to be not homophobic with your espousal of a church (and therefore its god narrative) that is homophobic?
