Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This discussion hasn’t been about the special status of holy matrimony but whether it should have any status.

No it hasn't. It's been about the application of "holy" matrimony homophobically.

Holy matrimony has no monopoly. I have said that.

No-one has said otherwise. You've also though told us that you approve of it being made available on a discriminatory basis: fine for straight people; not fine for gay people.

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

Clearly not true, and in any case irrelevant. Either you think a right should be available to straight people but not to gay people or you don't. If you do, you're endorsing homophobia. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

I believe I have stated the discriminatory position might be homophobic or it may be because of the discriminatory position all models have by dint of being distinctive models.

If you come out with alternative findings let me know so I can review.......rather than the usual atheists on this forum channel of loud and emotive assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it hasn't. It's been about the application of "holy" matrimony homophobically.

No-one has said otherwise. You've also though told us that you approve of it being made available on a discriminatory basis: fine for straight people; not fine for gay people.

Clearly not true, and in any case irrelevant. Either you think a right should be available to straight people but not to gay people or you don't. If you do, you're endorsing homophobia.

I want a same sex marriage with a woman. Who do I see?

[SteveH]

Homophobia means fear of the same although fear of homosexuality or homosexuals would probably stand.

Etymological fallacy.

[Spud]

Vlad,

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”?

Asking a bus company to allow black people to sit at the front (suppose the company believes black people are inferior) is not comparable with asking a minister to bless a homosexual relationship. If the Bible had said that black people were inferior, then it would be comparable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I want a same sex marriage with a woman. Who do I see?

A surgeon.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I believe I have stated the discriminatory position might be homophobic or it may be because of the discriminatory position all models have by dint of being distinctive models.

No, not by dint of being "distinctive" - it's by dint of discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation.

If you come out with alternative findings let me know so I can review.......rather than the usual atheists on this forum channel of loud and emotive assertion.

I just did.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Asking a bus company to allow black people to sit at the front (suppose the company believes black people are inferior) is not comparable with asking a minister to bless a homosexual relationship. If the Bible had said that black people were inferior, then it would be comparable.

Clearly wrong. The analogy concerns the denial of a right on the ground of race/sexual orientation alike.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A surgeon.

There’s YOUR answer as well.

[Outrider]

I believe I have stated the discriminatory position might be homophobic

There is no 'may' about it.

or it may be because of the discriminatory position all models have by dint of being distinctive models.

And yet we've already established that the sexuality-neutral model isn't discriminating, it's a broad swathe that includes a variety of distinctive ideas.

If you come out with alternative findings let me know so I can review.......rather than the usual atheists on this forum channel of loud and emotive assertion.

Quick, throw in an ad hominem in case everyone realises that you're feebly attempting to defend the indefensible.

O.

[Outrider]

Asking a bus company to allow black people to sit at the front (suppose the company believes black people are inferior) is not comparable with asking a minister to bless a homosexual relationship. If the Bible had said that black people were inferior, then it would be comparable.

Where does the Bible say that gay people are inferior? The act is an abomination according to some translations, but the people? As to whether the Bible says that Black people are 'inferior', wasn't that the interpretation of the slavery advocates who suggested that black people bore the Mark of Cain and/or the Curse of Ham? Given the poetic translations of the selective interpretations of the mistranslations of a select group of works that constitutes the modern Bible, you can read it to denigrate or exalt pretty much anyone. What someone says the book says is more reliably indicative of them than of the origins of the work.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There’s YOUR answer as well.

Spoken like a true lying homophobe. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, not by dint of being "distinctive" - it's by dint of discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation.

If I can not get a same sex marriage from the people who do’ em then I am calling discrimination

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no 'may' about it.

And yet we've already established that the sexuality-neutral model isn't discriminating, it's a broad swathe that includes a variety of distinctive ideas.

And excludes others and is thus discriminatory.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If I can not get a same sex marriage from the people who do’ em then I am calling discrimination

Gibberish. You can get a same-sex marriage from people who provide them if you want to. What you can't do though is get a same-sex marriage from your church. That's because your church is homophobic - something you seem to endorse.   

[Spud]

Spud,

Clearly wrong. The analogy concerns the denial of a right on the ground of race/sexual orientation alike.

Yes, that, on the ground of religious belief. Noting that they are not denied the right if they marry someone of the opposite sex.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Yes, that, on the ground of religious belief. Noting that they are not denied the right if they marry someone of the opposite sex.

But that's the point: they have the right if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not if they want to marry someone of the same sex. That's the homophobia part.

[Outrider]

And excludes others and is thus discriminatory.

Again, as I put the last time you suggested this, who does the sexuality-neutral model exclude? You can get married regardless of your sex, your gender, your sexuality, your religious choices... the sexuality-neutral model does not exclude anyone, and is therefore not discriminatory. Who are these 'others' you feel are being discriminated against?

O.

[Spud]

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.

For Jews, keeping those rules symbolized not doing the things that are abominations; consequently eating shelfish etc was not wrong for Gentiles. The abominations themselves, however, are wrong, for both Jews and Gentiles.

[Spud]

Spud,

But that's the point: they have the right if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not if they want to marry someone of the same sex. That's the homophobia part.

And not if they want to marry someone who's already married - there are always going to be conditions on who is an appropriate spouse. They need to wait until they find someone of the opposite sex to whom they can in some way be attracted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

And not if they want to marry someone who's already married. They need to wait until they find someone of the opposite sex to whom they can in some way be attracted.

What point do you think you're making? You can choose to end a marriage before embarking on another; you can't choose not to be gay (and nor of course should you be asked to).   

[Spud]

Spud,

What point do you think you're making? You can choose to end a marriage before embarking on another; you can't choose not to be gay (and nor of course should you be asked to).

The point is that in God's eyes you shouldn't marry someone just because you're attracted to them, nor if they're also attracted to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

The point is that in God's eyes you shouldn't marry someone just because you're attracted to them, nor if they're also attracted to you.

That's not a point, it's a faith claim - and in any case, so what? If you're saying that you worship a homophobic god (which you seem to be) then all you're telling us is that you worship a homophobic god. And?   

[Outrider]

For Jews, keeping those rules symbolized not doing the things that are abominations; consequently eating shelfish etc was not wrong for Gentiles. The abominations themselves, however, are wrong, for both Jews and Gentiles.

So God used to care, but now he doesn't. What makes you so confident he still has an issue with homosexuality, given that he didn't find fit to mention it at all in the New Testament?

O.

[Spud]

Spud,

That's not a point, it's a faith claim - and in any case, so what? If you're saying that you worship a homophobic god (which you seem to be) then all you're telling us is that you worship a homophobic god. And?

IIRC the outcome of this debate is that Church of England ministers shouldn't be allowed to marry couples unless they are willing to do same sex marriages too. Taking this further: in that scenario the situation will arise where a Christian couple asks for a church blessing of a civil marriage. If a minister will only bless a heterosexual union, are you suggesting it would be necessary to disqualify clergy who refuse to do the latter?