Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Spud]

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.

Care about what? I thought I was clear: The food laws and circumcision were for Jews only (and no longer are required, though some think they are). They were a sign that they were not practicing abominations. That sign was rendered obsolete because it was fulfilled by Christ.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

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?

You’re jumping too far ahead here. Before we get to what ministers should and should not be allowed to do, we need to grasp whether what they do (and don’t do) is defensible. We know that (presumably your) church’s position on this is homophobic, and your defence (effectively, “yes, but so is my god”) doesn’t change that. My view is that homophobia is morally contemptible, and it’s disappointing that you (and it seems Vlad) are for it.

As for what should be done about it, we seem to have no difficulty legislating against other discriminatory practices (re race, gender, age etc) so I don’t see why sexual orientation should be exempt from that, but as a minimum I’d have thought removing tax breaks would be the right place to start.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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.

For the third time who will give me and my fiancée a same.
Sex marriage? If you are unable to give us one because of our genders then you are discriminating.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For the third time who will give me and my fiancée a same.
Sex marriage? If you are unable to give us one because of our genders then you are discriminating.

If have no idea what you're trying to ask here (and nor I suspect have you). 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If have no idea what you're trying to ask here (and nor I suspect have you).

Yes it is impossible for a heterosexual couple to have a same sex marriage and yes it is therefore discriminatory.  Same sex discriminated against heterosex as holy matrimony discriminated against same sex.

Gender neutral also discriminates against the definition of holy matrimony.

Promoting gender neutral marriage militates against that gender has any significance in the contract Holy matrimony is a model where the differences between the genders are thought to matter.More it is type of matrimony in which God is involved

[Gordon]

Yes it is impossible for a heterosexual couple to have a same sex marriage and yes it is therefore discriminatory.  Same sex discriminated against heterosex as holy matrimony discriminated against same sex.

Gender neutral also discriminates against the definition of holy matrimony.

Promoting gender neutral marriage militates against that gender has any significance in the contract Holy matrimony is a model where the differences between the genders are thought to matter.More it is type of matrimony in which God is involved

Well I'm glad you think you've cleared that up, Vlad: sadly though, all you've produced is a world salad (albeit a very good word salad). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes it is impossible for a heterosexual couple to have a same sex marriage and yes it is therefore discriminatory.

Is it? Do same sex couples have to sign a document or something saying, “by the way, I’m definitely gay”? 

Same sex discriminated against heterosex as holy matrimony discriminated against same sex.

Don’t be silly.   

Gender neutral also discriminates against the definition of holy matrimony.

That’s your definition of “holy matrimony” (others are available) and, even if you could sustain an argument for discrimination (or at least make one to begin with) that would just mean you had two distinct types of discrimination going on, not that the second one somehow cancelled the first one. You’re attempting here the equivalent of, “yes I’m a racist but I’m also a misogynist, therefore my racism doesn’t count” (also known as "whataboutism").   

Promoting gender neutral marriage militates against that gender has any significance in the contract Holy matrimony is a model where the differences between the genders are thought to matter.More it is type of matrimony in which God is involved

And for those of us working in English?

So anyway, after all your endless ducking and diving we’re still left with this: you espouse a homophobic god and a homophobic church that carries out this (supposed) god’s (supposed) intentions homophobically.

I think that’s disgusting. Why don’t you?   

[Spud]

Spud,

You’re jumping too far ahead here. Before we get to what ministers should and should not be allowed to do, we need to grasp whether what they do (and don’t do) is defensible. We know that (presumably your) church’s position on this is homophobic, and your defence (effectively, “yes, but so is my god”) doesn’t change that.

What is homophobic about believing that marriage is between one man and one woman?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

What is homophobic about believing that marriage is between one man and one woman?

What is racist about believing that seats at the front of the bus are only for white people, or misogynist about believing that votes are only for men?

Besides, this is more about what people do with their homophobic beliefs - denying marriage services to gay people while providing the same services to straight people for example.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are Churches who will marry them down the road. Are there Humanist celebrants who will provide holy matrimonial services to couples?

[Outrider]

Care about what? I thought I was clear: The food laws and circumcision were for Jews only (and no longer are required, though some think they are).

So he cared when they were his chosen people, but now that he's changed his mind and those who choose to follow are his special people suddenly that stuff's not important.

They were a sign that they were not practicing abominations. That sign was rendered obsolete because it was fulfilled by Christ.

And yet he went back on that and returned to proscriptions on cutting beards and eating pork in part 3 'Call me Allah'...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are Churches who will marry them down the road.

“Yeah, so my church and I are a bunch of morally bankrupt fuckwits about this but hey, don’t sweat it – not all of them are.”
 

Are there Humanist celebrants who will provide holy matrimonial services to couples?

No. What point do you think you’re making?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“Yeah, so my church and I are a bunch of morally bankrupt fuckwits about this but hey, don’t sweat it – not all of them are.”
 
No. What point do you think you’re making?

Oh it's pretty clear the point I'm making. If they aren't prepared to provide holy matrimony, why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh it's pretty clear the point I'm making. If they aren't prepared to provide holy matrimony, why not?

No it isn't. Why not? Because they don't want to. Because they don't like the font it's printed in. Because anything. Why on earth does it matter?     

[Spud]

Spud,

What is racist about believing that seats at the front of the bus are only for white people, or misogynist about believing that votes are only for men?

Besides, this is more about what people do with their homophobic beliefs - denying marriage services to gay people while providing the same services to straight people for example.   

If it's morally wrong for black people to sit at the front, or for women to vote, then there's nothing racist or misogynist. But the Bible says nothing to indicate that any race is superior or inferior, or that women can't have a say in who is elected leader (see Deborah, who was one of the Judges in Judges, for example) Regarding marriage, Jesus said that in the beginning God made them male and female, so they are not two but one, therefore what God has joined, let no man separate. So God created marriage between a man and a woman. Any homosexual (or non marital sexual) activity opposes this purpose, which is why God calls it abomination.
The reason some churches still don't allow SSM is because its purpose is to help people come into God's kingdom, which means to come under his kingship. It can't cherry pick which of God's teaching it wants to obey.
For sure this means that all Christians have fleshly misdeeds to put away, and what is a misdeed can often take time to accept let alone overcome. But God is gracious and patient if we repent daily.
So when you accuse Christians of homophobia you don't realise that actually all they are interested in is helping gay people to come into and stay in God's kingdom.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

If it's morally wrong for black people to sit at the front, or for women to vote, then there's nothing racist or misogynist. But the Bible says nothing to indicate that any race is superior or inferior, or that women can't have a say in who is elected leader (see Deborah, who was one of the Judges in Judges, for example) Regarding marriage, Jesus said that in the beginning God made them male and female, so they are not two but one, therefore what God has joined, let no man separate. So God created marriage between a man and a woman. Any homosexual (or non marital sexual) activity opposes this purpose, which is why God calls it abomination.
The reason some churches still don't allow SSM is because its purpose is to help people come into God's kingdom, which means to come under his kingship. It can't cherry pick which of God's teaching it wants to obey.
For sure this means that all Christians have fleshly misdeeds to put away, and what is a misdeed can often take time to accept let alone overcome. But God is gracious and patient if we repent daily.
So when you accuse Christians of homophobia you don't realise that actually all they are interested in is helping gay people to come into and stay in God's kingdom.

You’re missing the point here. If your allow rights to some people but deny the same rights to other people solely on the grounds of their innate characteristics – race, age, gender, sexual orientation etc – then you’re practicing racism, ageism, misogyny, homophobia etc.

Why someone does that is a different matter entirely.   

[Enki]

There are Churches who will marry them down the road. Are there Humanist celebrants who will provide holy matrimonial services to couples?

Vlad,

Actually, in England and Wales regrettably, Humanist celebrants aren't allowed to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, as far as I know. However, even if they were, there is no reason to think that they should conduct Holy matrimonial services, just as you wouldn't expect Jewish rabbis to do so. However, if they were allowed to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, one would expect them to be gender neutral, or else the same accusation of homophobia could be levelled against them.

As with Blue, I can't see your point.

[ProfessorDavey]

If it's morally wrong for black people to sit at the front, or for women to vote, then there's nothing racist or misogynist.

Firstly, there are no moral absolutely and whether these are right or wrong is a matter for ethical debate, although I think there is a settle view currently that discrimination against people on the basis of their race or gender is wrong. However even if you do consider it to be ethically OK that doesn't mean it isn't still racist or sexist - it will be as you are treating some people less favourably on the basis of their race or sex.

But the Bible says nothing to indicate that any race is superior or inferior, or that women can't have a say in who is elected leader.

On the contrary - the bible is full of stuff which has been used now and in the past to justify clear discrimination against people on the basis of race and sex. We've talked about the biblical justification of slavery and other persecution of black people on the basis of their inferiority.

And of course the bible continually (from the first chapter) indicates that women are inferior to men. And on the ability of women to have a say in the selection of elected leaders - there are still major denominations where women are banned from being priests and only priests have a say in electing leaders. And the move to allow women to have a say is very recent in many denominations. I'd argue that the major denominations (e.g. RCC, CofE, Orthodox) still do not have full equality for women, and ultimately this is based on, and justified by, biblical scripture.

[Roses]

'Holy' matrimony in the Bible often meant the men had one wife and mistresses. Even though Mary was betrothed to Joseph it didn't stop god getting her in the family way.

[Outrider]

If it's morally wrong for black people to sit at the front, or for women to vote, then there's nothing racist or misogynist.

The important bit there, of course, is the 'if'. And I appreciate that you most likely don't think that those things are moral transgressions.

But the Bible says nothing to indicate that any race is superior or inferior, or that women can't have a say in who is elected leader (see Deborah, who was one of the Judges in Judges, for example).

Actually, it does -

“Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” Genesis 9:18-27

And the whole 'do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man' thing - Timothy, I think?

Regarding marriage, Jesus said that in the beginning God made them male and female, so they are not two but one, therefore what God has joined, let no man separate.

Didn't God also allegedly create all people in their image? The man and the woman, and by extension, the homosexuals, the intersex people, the trans, the non-binary...

So God created marriage between a man and a woman.

Notwithstanding that marriage sprang up outside of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Judaism and Christianity have accepted innumerable changes to their own traditions of marriage over time; concubinage, multiple wives, divorce...

Any homosexual (or non marital sexual) activity opposes this purpose, which is why God calls it abomination.[/quoe]

What 'purpose'?
 

]The reason some churches still don't allow SSM is because its purpose is to help people come into God's kingdom, which means to come under his kingship.

And the whole 'judge not lest ye be judged' thing? We have no primary sources, vanishingly few secondary sources, and horrendously polluted tertiary sources which have been subject to all sorts of adulterations by various vested interests over the past one and a half thousand years, but you're going to cleave to literalism in this one section despite the overarching theme of the stories being that love should transcend all?

It can't cherry pick which of God's teaching it wants to obey.

Of course you can, that's why you have denominational variations and people skipping from one sect to another.
 

For sure this means that all Christians have fleshly misdeeds to put away, and what is a misdeed can often take time to accept let alone overcome. But God is gracious and patient if we repent daily.

If God is gracious and accepting, marry gay people and let them seek forgiveness from him?
 

So when you accuse Christians of homophobia you don't realise that actually all they are interested in is helping gay people to come into and stay in God's kingdom.

It's still homophobia. They might genuinely believe that they have the best interests of gay people in their hearts, but then many of those who supported slavery genuinely thought (because it was what they'd been taught, in some cases by their churches) that other ethnicities and nations were backward savages who needed 'saving' from themselves.

That sort of authoritarian discrimination is still short-sighted discrimination.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually, in England and Wales regrettably, Humanist celebrants aren't allowed to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, as far as I know. However, even if they were, there is no reason to think that they should conduct Holy matrimonial services, just as you wouldn't expect Jewish rabbis to do so. However, if they were allowed to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, one would expect them to be gender neutral, or else the same accusation of homophobia could be levelled against them.

As with Blue, I can't see your point.

I think Blue sees the point that the reason Humanist celebrants exclude couples wanting holy matrimony are in the same category as why some priests exclude same sex couples and that is why the law is as it is.
Yes there are priests whose motivation is homophobia and priests who observe the scriptural definition.
As there will be Humanist celebrants who are motivated by their beliefs and those motivated  by religious persecution.

[Gordon]

I think Blue sees the point that the reason Humanist celebrants exclude couples wanting holy matrimony are in the same category as why some priests exclude same sex couples and that is why the law is as it is.
Yes there are priests whose motivation is homophobia and priests who observe the scriptural definition.
As there will be Humanist celebrants who are motivated by their beliefs and those motivated  by religious persecution.

You're getting silly now, Vlad: it is you who is making a category error here. In effect you're proposing the equivalent of someone who has a leaky tap but decides to approach a bus driver about doing the repair rather than approach a plumber - I can't imagine many would be that stupid.

Those expressly wanting a religious wedding would, I suspect, not try to engage a Humanist celebrant since, by definition, a Humanist celebrant would not be qualified to conduct a religious marriage service, and I'd imagine that any Humanist celebrant who was asked to conduct some "holy matrimony" would, after they had stopped laughing, advise the enquirer to approach a qualified cleric. By the same token I'd be surprised if someone wanting a Humanist wedding would first try to engage their local minister or priest, and if they did I'd imagine that the cleric involved, who no doubt would also have a wee chuckle to themselves, would direct them to the nearest specialist Humanist celebrant.

The relevant issue as, regards the topic of this thread, is whether Humanist celebrants would feel justified in denying their marital services to same-sex couples purely on the basis that they were same-sex couples - and if they did, then they would be just as homophobic as it seems your church is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're getting silly now, Vlad: it is you who is making a category error here. In effect you're proposing the equivalent of someone who has a leaky tap but decides to approach a bus driver about doing the repair rather than approach a plumber - I can't imagine many would be that stupid.

Those expressly wanting a religious wedding would, I suspect, not try to engage a Humanist celebrant since, by definition, a Humanist celebrant would not be qualified to conduct a religious marriage service, and I'd imagine that any Humanist celebrant who was asked to conduct some "holy matrimony" would, after they had stopped laughing, advise the enquirer to approach a qualified cleric. By the same token I'd be surprised if someone wanting a Humanist wedding would first try to engage their local minister or priest, and if they did I'd imagine that the cleric involved, who no doubt would also have a wee chuckle to themselves, would direct them to the nearest specialist Humanist celebrant.

The relevant issue as, regards the topic of this thread, is whether Humanist celebrants would feel justified in denying their marital services to same-sex couples purely on the basis that they were same-sex couples - and if they did, then they would be just as homophobic as it seems your church is.

Don’t think so. Both couples are being discriminated against. You are brushing the religious discrimination aspect of this away by saying that there are other people who will give them holy matrimony. So by that logic we can brush the gender neutral aspect away by saying there are other people who will give them a gender neutral wedding......

And I think this very argument is why we don’t have the spectacle of anybody being forced to conduct a service for a model of matrimony that they don’t agree with.

[Gordon]

Don’t think so. Both couples are being discriminated against. You are brushing the religious discrimination aspect of this away by saying that there are other people who will give them holy matrimony. So by that logic we can brush the gender neutral aspect away by saying there are other people who will give them a gender neutral wedding......

And I think this very argument is why we don’t have the spectacle of anybody being forced to conduct a service for a model of matrimony that they don’t agree with.

Don't be daft: not being in a position to provide a service in the first place: for example I am not in a position to provide a dental service, is not the same as being able to provide a particular service but declining to do so in certain selected cases.

If Humanist celebrants aren't qualified to provide "holy matrimony" in the first place then they can't be accused of discrimination by refusing to conduct a ceremony that they are not competent to perform.

Stop digging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be daft: not being in a position to provide a service in the first place: for example I am not in a position to provide a dental service, is not the same as being able to provide a particular service but declining to do so in certain selected cases.

If Humanist celebrants aren't qualified to provide "holy matrimony" in the first place then they can't be accused of discrimination by refusing to conduct a ceremony that they are not competent to perform.

Stop digging.

And by the same token priests do not feel scripture qualifies them for gender neutral weddings and the law surely underlines that as well.

You are bigging up the status of your opinion which has no support in law. To get any purchase for your argument
Both humanist celebrants and priests have to get qualified for both gender neutral holy matrimony and gender important holy matrimony.