Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they haven't: they've been arguing that "holy" weddings should be available to any couple who wish that form of wedding (provided that they meet the other legal requirements).

Stop misrepresenting what is being said.

But Gordon, Gender neutral can’t Be logically included in man/woman.

Other, legal components are in place.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But Gordon, Gender neutral can’t Be logically included in man/woman.

That's homophobia for you.

Race neutral can't be included in "whites only" either. So...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's just one (not "the") Christian definition. Other Christians think differently.

Yes, So what’s your problem since we now have the pragmatic position of “I don’t do that sort of service, try down the road”

First, why should it be preserved? The Klu Klux Klan thinks black people should be denied rights available to white people.

And we don’t listen to them and legislate against their violence

How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it race neutral?

Second, even if it was to be preserved why not then recognise if for what it is - homophobic? 

No..... Gender neutrality falls outside it’s definition, as does polygamy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's homophobia for you.

No, homosexuality is not especially included since the self same rules ‘Encompass polygamy’.

Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.

[Roses]

No, homosexuality is not especially included since the self same rules ‘Encompass polygamy’.

Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.

So what? The not so good book is wrong about so many things. As has been pointed out to you, Jesus was never reported as having condemned homosexuality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's just one (not "the") Christian definition. Other Christians think differently.

First, why should it be preserved? The Klu Klux Klan thinks black people should be denied rights available to white people. How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it race neutral? 

Second, even if it was to be preserved why not then recognise if for what  it is - homophobic? 

No, it's homophobia. And you seem to be all for it.

I’m not sure the KKK business is a good analogy. Both you and I agree that the KKK are a bad thing(although you might have a bit of bother logically justifying it to yourself) and just you thinks that holy matrimony is wrong and I don’t.

For a better analogy we would be looking at the Rites not rights of the KKK. Your argument and all the other atheists argument is that gay people should have the right to holy matrimony. Your argument then translates analogically to wanting black people to be able to receive the rights of the KKK.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what? The not so good book is wrong about so many things. As has been pointed out to you, Jesus was never reported as having condemned homosexuality.

And there is probably no documentary evidence implicit or explicit of anyone calling for gender neutrality in marriage.

It is not a thing until very recently. Looking at why that should be leads inevitably to those atheists who primarily see it as a weapon against the church.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes, So what’s your problem since we now have the pragmatic position of “I don’t do that sort of service, try down the road”

So what’s your problem with the bus company that doesn’t let black people sit at the front – after all, we now have the pragmatic position of “I don’t do that sort of service, try down the road”?

And we don’t listen to them and legislate against their violence

This isn’t about violent homophobia, it’s about discriminatory homophobia remember?

No..... Gender neutrality falls outside it’s definition, as does polygamy.

   

Yet again, not it doesn’t. “Homophobia” includes prejudice against gay people as well as fear/hatred of gay people. There are plenty of online dictionaries available if you want to check.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, homosexuality is not especially included since the self same rules ‘Encompass polygamy’.

Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.

Wrong again. A homophobic denial of a right doesn’t cease to be homophobic because it’s also denied to a different group. The KKK doesn’t stop being racist if it’s also misogynistic.   

[Outrider]

But Gordon, Gender neutral can’t Be logically included in man/woman.

'Holy' matrimony is already gender neutral - both men and women, and anyone who identifies as something somewhere outside of that or between can get married. To an extent it's somewhat sex-neutral, inasmuch as men and women can both access it, although there is the grey area you might have to address regarding various intersex individuals and how they'd fit into the matrix.

What it isn't, though, is sexuality-neutral.

O.

[Outrider]

No, homosexuality is not especially included since the self same rules ‘Encompass polygamy’.

Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.

Scriptually it's no fancy haircuts, no shellfish, no tattoos, no mixed fabrics... the list goes on, and yet there doesn't seem to be a hold out on 'Holy' summer fashions?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m not sure the KKK business is a good analogy. Both you and I agree that the KKK are a bad thing(although you might have a bit of bother logically justifying it to yourself) and just you thinks that holy matrimony is wrong and I don’t.

Why are you still lying about this? Yet again, have any kind matrimony you like. What’s wrong isn’t the type of matrimony (eg “holy” vs “non-holy”), but rather its homophobic application.   

For a better analogy…

There’s was nothing wrong with my analogy.

…we would be looking at the Rites not rights of the KKK. Your argument and all the other atheists argument is that gay people should have the right to holy matrimony. Your argument then translates analogically to wanting black people to be able to receive the rights of the KKK.

You’re really lost it now. Suggest you try to think about what you’re saying before you post it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Holy' matrimony is already gender neutral - both men and women, and anyone who identifies as something somewhere outside of that or between can get married. To an extent it's somewhat sex-neutral, inasmuch as men and women can both access it, although there is the grey area you might have to address regarding various intersex individuals and how they'd fit into the matrix.

What it isn't, though, is sexuality-neutral.

O.

Holy matrimony is between one man and one woman in the sight of God. It is just one model of matrimony among a whole host of others none of which has a monopoly unless the powers of law deign it to be so.

That formula as it happens served to distinguish Christian marriage from polygamy. Gender neutrality was not a thing then or for a long time after.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Scriptually it's no fancy haircuts, no shellfish, no tattoos, no mixed fabrics... the list goes on, and yet there doesn't seem to be a hold out on 'Holy' summer fashions?

O.

So you are saying getting married is like having a tattoo. Bad analogy and trivialising cynical nonsense which plays to the gallery by use of the horses laugh fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why are you still lying about this? Yet again, have any kind matrimony you like. What’s wrong isn’t the type of matrimony (eg “holy” vs “non-holy”), but rather its homophobic application.   

There’s was nothing wrong with my analogy.

You’re really lost it now. Suggest you try to think about what you’re saying before you post it.

Yes I’m sure some priests weaponise it because of homophobia. And some priests just stick to it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes I’m sure some priests weaponise it because of homophobia. And some priests just stick to it.

No-one's "weaponising" anything. What's being explained to you is that denying a right to gay people that you provide to straight people is homophobic. Your endless prevarications, diversions, re-definitions, flat out lies etc don't change that.

You seem to be all for this homophobic practice. I'm not.     

[Gordon]

But Gordon, Gender neutral can’t Be logically included in man/woman.

Other, legal components are in place.

Of course it can: a sex or gender neutral stance would allow (excluding intersex people) for three core marital combinations that are of equal relevance - male/male, male/female and female/female.

Maybe your "holy matrimony" needs to become more inclusive so that all three of these combinations are being catered for.

[Gordon]

Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.

That is an fallacious argument from authority, Vlad: what on earth make you think that ancient 'scripture' is authoritative across society at large in the 21st century?

Moreover, since here in the UK same-sex marriage is now legal it should be blindingly obvious to you that this 'scripture' you cite simply isn't authoritative these days.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it can: a sex or gender neutral stance would allow (excluding intersex people) for three core marital combinations that are of equal relevance - male/male, male/female and female/female.

Maybe your "holy matrimony" needs to become more inclusive so that all three of these combinations are being catered for.

That doesn't exclude 'intersex', or rather people with Differences in Sexual Development.

[Outrider]

Holy matrimony is between one man and one woman in the sight of God.

Your interpretation of 'Holy matrimony' - which you are not alone in cleaving to - is one man and one woman in the sight of God. Bearing in mind that, even within the tradition of that particular deity that's historically not always been the case - Solomon seems to be a pertinent example with his seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines... That notwithstanding, how do you reconcile the 'one man, one woman' party line with intersex individuals? Are they prohibited from marriage?

It is just one model of matrimony among a whole host of others none of which has a monopoly unless the powers of law deign it to be so.

And the sexuality-neutral model doesn't claim a monopoly - it lets you choose whichever interpretation of marriage you want for you, but it doesn't let you impose your model on others.

That formula as it happens served to distinguish Christian marriage from polygamy.

Except that there are Christian sects that practice polygamy, with a number of parallel 'one man, one woman' marriages, so it does nothing of the sort, notwithstanding that polygamy isn't the issue under discussion.

Gender neutrality was not a thing then or for a long time after.

And, as has been explained, this isn't about gender neutrality, this is about sexuality-neutrality.

O.

[Gordon]

That doesn't exclude 'intersex', or rather people with Differences in Sexual Development.

You're right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is an fallacious argument from authority, Vlad: what on earth make you think that ancient 'scripture' is authoritative across society at large in the 21st century?

Moreover, since here in the UK same-sex marriage is now legal it should be blindingly obvious to you that this 'scripture' you cite simply isn't authoritative these days.

It may not have a monopoly on authority about marriage but it is authoratative about itself. itself

[Gordon]

It may not have a monopoly on authority about marriage but it is authoratative about itself. itself

Then it is self-referential and matters only to those who regard 'scripture' as authoritative.

Since society at large isn't mainly made up of Christians who take 'scripture' literally or authoritatively: many Christians are more nuanced than that, and many of the rest of us aren't Christians or even theists, then your plea that "holy matrimony" merits some kind of special status by dint of it being 'scriptural' is clearly flawed -  and then there are the problems of it being discriminatory.

I'd suggest it's time you stopped digging, Vlad.

[Outrider]

It may not have a monopoly on authority about marriage but it is authoratative about itself.

OK, so we've established that a sexuality-neutral view of marriage isn't seeking to impose a view on anyone... now we just need to address the discriminatory position of those churches which choose not to participate in marriage for all.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then it is self-referential and matters only to those who regard 'scripture' as authoritative.

Since society at large isn't mainly made up of Christians who take 'scripture' literally or authoritatively: many Christians are more nuanced than that, and many of the rest of us aren't Christians or even theists, then your plea that "holy matrimony" merits some kind of special status by dint of it being 'scriptural' is clearly flawed -  and then there are the problems of it being discriminatory.

I'd suggest it's time you stopped digging, Vlad.

This discussion hasn’t been about the special status of holy matrimony but whether it should have any status. Holy matrimony has no monopoly. I have said that.

If any model is being given special status here it is gender neutral marriage by you.