Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Aruntraveller]

I do love you Trent. Is this a case of I can only love you if I hold the same view of marriage
Rather than a live and let live attitude?

If you love me you can have any view of marriage you like, if you vote Tory it would be another story.

But wouldn't you rather live in a world were all people are treated equally. I know we're a long way from that, and this is but a small issue in the grand scheme of things. Still if you cleave to a principle of equality surely you can see the basic flaw in the position of the Church.

[Spud]

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.

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?

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...

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...

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?

Of course you can, that's why you have denominational variations and people skipping from one sect to another.
 
If God is gracious and accepting, marry gay people and let them seek forgiveness from him?
 
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.

Thanks for the note about Canaan, yes apparently he was denied privileges (the reason is that God had already blessed Ham, so Noah couldn't then curse him for his sin. Canaan was unlucky, I guess), but was equal in the sense that he could obtain forgiveness.

Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited. That's discrimination, right? Yet it's in the interests of the individuals concerned.

[Gordon]

There we go.
Owning up to a massive programme of religious persecution wasn’t thar hard. Was it.

I'd call it religious progression, Vlad: as a move to remove overt homophobia in current social processes - changing antediluvian attitudes might take a bit longer, and of course they can keep all the non-discriminatory stuff that amuses them so (songs, sermons, old books, costumes etc).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we all know what we would be forced to do if we believed as you do and wanted to do something about it Hillside. Unfortunately there are those of us who do not think we are perpetrating an act of homophobia but believe that holy matrimony is gender important and numerically specific. That what is happening in a partnership between a man and a woman is distinct from other patterns of matrimony, most of which, we recognise. In concentrating on that, I let those who hold to the other models service their own preferred model and effectively forget about them.
In the model I hold to I think that a marriage of different sexes is the bigger challenge because of the biological, psychological and sociological space. I may change my view but that is more likely to come about through experience, revelation and review of scripture rather than any guffology from a ranting antitheist.

Yes, we’d worked out that you’re a homophobe – all you’re trying to do here is to defend your homophobia (and you don’t get to deny it by the way because the activity you describe fits the definition).

Try googling “miscegenation”: you’ll find lots of links to laws and texts against interracial marriage that try most of the justification for homophobia you’ve tried here. Presumably you’ll find them just as acceptable?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

What 'institution'?

In this case, and churches with homophobic practices. To be fair yours seems to be trying at least to grow past that, though for some reason you think that's a reason for leaving it.

A pastor's responsibility is to ALL those under their care. Does that pastor sacrifice the unity of the flock in order to help someone who wishes to change the direction of the flock?

The Supreme Grand Wizard of the KKK has responsibility for ALL those under his care. Does that SGW sacrifice the unity of the membership in order to help someone who wishes to change the direction of the membership?

[Aruntraveller]

Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited. That's discrimination, right? Yet it's in the interests of the individuals concerned.

Unless your name is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and then magically it's ok. So no hypocrisy on the part of the Catholic church there. Why is it in the interests of the individuals concerned?

[Gordon]

Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited. That's discrimination, right? Yet it's in the interests of the individuals concerned.

Says who, and on what basis?

[ProfessorDavey]

Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited.

Do they - I've not heard of it - name names please.

Which churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited? That's discrimination, right?

Cohabiting isn't a protected characteristic under equalities legislation so your point is no more relevant than me pointing out that some choral societies wont permit someone to become a member unless they can sight read music, which also isn't a protected characteristic.

Sexuality is, however, a protected characteristic under equalities legislation.

[ProfessorDavey]

A pastor's responsibility is to ALL those under their care.

Including those who support gay couples being able to marry, which if the Church of Scotland is anything like other Anglican and RCC congregations will represent a majority of its members.

Does that pastor sacrifice the unity of the flock in order to help someone who wishes to change the direction of the flock?

What unity, there is no unity as some of the CofS membership will support gay couples being able to marry while others will oppose. The pastor isn't maintaining unity - rather he or she is placing him or herself on one side of a divide in opinion within his or her flock. The only way you would achieve unity would be for the approach of the hierarchy within the CofS to act in a manner that drove all people on one side of the opinion divide out of the church.

[Anchorman]

Including those who support gay couples being able to marry, which if the Church of Scotland is anything like other Anglican and RCC congregations will represent a majority of its members.
What unity, there is no unity as some of the CofS membership will support gay couples being able to marry while others will oppose. The pastor isn't maintaining unity - rather he or she is placing him or herself on one side of a divide in opinion within his or her flock. The only way you would achieve unity would be for the approach of the hierarchy within the CofS to act in a manner that drove all people on one side of the opinion divide out of the church.

There is hierarchy in the CofS?
First I've heard of it.
The 'Hieratrchy' is the General ASSEmbly, whose membership changes every year.
Even then no single GA can enact legislation - the 'Barrier Act' ensures that such a process is drawn out.
Besides, a minister can only work in concert with his/her Kirk Session.
A 'liberal' minister under a 'conservative' Session - or vice veraa - means that often there is stalemate in such circumstances.
Kirk Sessions tend toward the more conservative, and, since in both Presbyteries and GA, presbytery elders outnumber mjinisters, I'd suggest that conservatism prevails.

[Spud]

Do they - I've not heard of it - name names please.
Cohabiting isn't a protected characteristic under equalities legislation so your point is no more relevant than me pointing out that some choral societies wont permit someone to become a member unless they can sight read music, which also isn't a protected characteristic.

Sexuality is, however, a protected characteristic under equalities legislation.

The law says anyone of marriageable age has the right to marry subject to certain restrictions. Those restrictions don't include people who've been married before or are already living as if married. So those people's right to marry is  protected by law, is it not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We could adjust equality legislation, so that it applies across the wedding industry, by outlawing discriminatory practices.

That should have been done when same-sex marriage was legislated for, and while we can applaud the UK government for bringing forward the legislation in England & Wales but we can despair that they fudged the equality aspect by allowing the Church of England and the Church in Wales exemption from being able to conduct religious same-sex marriages - thereby rubber stamping their institutional homophobia.

https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/sexuality-same-sex-marriage-cofe/

Alternatively the Christian religious sector could move on from getting their social attitudes interpreted from old books written in antiquity.

You seem to have exceeded your brief here which was to suggest a way of extending a gender important process in the site of God to eradication of a religion.

You were only told to blow the bloody doors off.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

FFS, what the hell is wrong with you? How we should fix a problem IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT MATTER FROM WHETHER IT IS A PROBLEM. Capiche? Something? Anything?

If you think your homophobc god and your homophobic church are fine, then say so.

If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine but it would be too hard to fix the problem so better to leave well alone, then say so.

If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine, and that come to think of it the problems with remedying institutionalised racism, sexism, ageism etc were just as daunting in their day but were tackled reasonably successfully nonetheless so why not give it a go with this problem too - then just say so.

Either way, just stop fucking around with endless diversions and for once in your life try at least to deal with an issue head on.

You are trying to avoid the charge of crap analogy.
When a bus company allows African Americans to ride any where they like that is easily provable.
Since God is involved in a holy matrimony, how are you going to prove he has accommodated that wedding? Since you are vague about what you are actually wanting here how can you expect complete observance. The government would have expert and competent legal advisors on this and that is why the law is as it is.

How for instance does the law cope with a same sex couple announce that  they don’t believe their wedding was holy because they did not feel the priests heart wasn’t in it or because they didn’t feel God was present?

[Gordon]

You seem to have exceeded your brief here which was to suggest a way of extending a gender important process in the site of God to eradication of a religion.

I don't recognise the brief.

You were only told to blow the bloody doors off.

In reality, of course, there is no need to blow up anything: time will take care of it as Christianity declines in the UK, and this is reflected in the recent (2019) changes in marriage statistics in Scotland.

The number of humanist marriages carried out in Scotland has overtaken Christian ones for the first time since records began, official statistics have revealed.

Humanist marriages made up 22.6 per cent of the total last year, while Christian marriages of all denominations made up 22.3 per cent, the National Records of Scotland data showed.

Civil ceremonies continue to be the most popular, making up 48.6 per cent of the total, but marriage itself is becoming less common, with the 26,007 recorded in 2019 the lowest ever.

https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/humanist-marriages-overtake-christian-scotland-455735 

See also.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18542308.god-not-joined-together-humanist-weddings-scotland-now-outnumber-christian-ones/

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are trying to avoid the charge of crap analogy.

I have already rebutted the “charge” that it’s a crap analogy. Both cases alike concern rights that are made available and/or denied on the sole basis of innate characteristics. As you’ve never understood how analogies work though, there’s nothing more to discuss.
 

When a bus company allows African Americans to ride any where they like that is easily provable.

Nope, no idea. When Christian churches other than your own offer equal marriage, that is easily provable too. What point did you think you were making here?

Since God…

Very funny.

First, as “God” is just your faith claim, you don’t get to have “since God” as your premise. The best you can have here is, “since my faith claim “god” involves a story about a deity who….” etc. 

Second, other Christian denominations will make a different statement about the same god – ie, “he’s cool with equal marriage” so yours is just one unqualified faith claim competing against others.

Third, even if by some process you could finally demonstrate both your claim “god” and that this god cares about who goes to bed with whom, still all that would tell us is that he’s a homophobe.

…is involved in a holy matrimony, how are you going to prove he has accommodated that wedding?

I don’t have to prove anything – other that is than that you espouse both a god story and associated church practices that are homophobic. 

Since you are vague about what you are actually wanting here…

Lying doesn’t help you here either. I’m not vague at all. What I “want” is for you to stop ducking and diving, and finally to address why you think a homophobic god story and a homophobic church are things to espouse.   

…how can you expect complete observance. The government would have expert and competent legal advisors on this and that is why the law is as it is.

No, the law is as it is because the established church gets a free pass on various matters that are not afforded to other institutions. 

How for instance does the law cope with a same sex couple announce that  they don’t believe their wedding was holy because they did not feel the priests heart wasn’t in it or because they didn’t feel God was present?

As that’s completely irrelevant, I neither know nor care. To try to drag you kicking and screaming back to the issue: the differential provision of rights on the grounds of innate characteristics (race, age, sexual orientation etc) has names – racism, ageism, homophobia etc. Your god story and your church that carries out its (supposed) god’s (supposed) wishes practices the third of these. You seem to think this is a good thing.

What does that make you?       

[ProfessorDavey]

There is hierarchy in the CofS?
First I've heard of it.
The 'Hieratrchy' is the General ASSEmbly, whose membership changes every year.

Sounds like a pretty standard hierarchical structure to me.

As far as I'm aware there are only about 700 commissioners who get a vote on important matters out of the entire membership. And those commissioners (again as far as I'm aware) are 'nominated' rather than elected by their local organisational structures. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but a nomination process tends to involve far fewer people than a process whereby a delegate is elected democratically by all members.

And further, as far as I can see, that commissioner is not a 'delegate', in other words required to vote in a manner agreed by the entire membership they represent, but is merely a nominated representative, akin to an MP who can vote any way they wish in parliament (albeit at least they are elected).

So, yup, looks pretty hierarchical to me - with a ordinary rank and file parishioner having pretty much zero say in the decisions actually taken at the General Assembly.

Even then no single GA can enact legislation - the 'Barrier Act' ensures that such a process is drawn out.
Besides, a minister can only work in concert with his/her Kirk Session.
A 'liberal' minister under a 'conservative' Session - or vice veraa - means that often there is stalemate in such circumstances.
Kirk Sessions tend toward the more conservative, and, since in both Presbyteries and GA, presbytery elders outnumber mjinisters, I'd suggest that conservatism prevails.

No shit Sherlock.

A constitution that embeds conservatism and is constitutionally structured to prevent change and reform - who'd have thought it within a religious organisation eh

Bit like the CofE which over years (because of a similarly constitutional structure that opposes change and reform) was unable to make the change to allow women to become Bishops even though the move was supported by a majority within the Synod and top to bottom in the organisation.

[ProfessorDavey]

The law says anyone of marriageable age has the right to marry subject to certain restrictions.

True.

Those restrictions don't include people who've been married before or are already living as if married.

I've no idea what you are talking about Spud - what do you mean by 'living as if married' - as far as the law is concerned you are either married or you are not married. If the former you cannot get married, if the latter you can (albeit with the caveat of age, relationship to the person you plan to marry etc). The notion of 'living as if married', as you describe it is completely irrelevant.

I also asked you to name names of churches who refuse to marry couples who are living together - examples please.

[ProfessorDavey]

The law says anyone of marriageable age has the right to marry subject to certain restrictions. Those restrictions don't include people who've been married before or are already living as if married. So those people's right to marry is  protected by law, is it not?

Please note the post that this was your reply to:

'Cohabiting isn't a protected characteristic under equalities legislation so your point is no more relevant than me pointing out that some choral societies wont permit someone to become a member unless they can sight read music, which also isn't a protected characteristic.

Sexuality is, however, a protected characteristic under equalities legislation.'

Now the equalities legislation prevents people being discriminated against (defined as being treated less favourably than others) in employment or in the provision of goods or services on the basis of a list of so-called protected characteristics. Thos protected characteristics are:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

Note that 'living together' isn't a protected characteristic so is not protected under the equalities act. There are instances where a person may be discriminated against under secondary discrimination where the reason for treating someone less favourably because they are, or are not, living together. As example might be an employer refusing to employ a women who they know is living with a partner because they think they wont be committed to the job as they are likely to want to have a child. That could be construed as discrimination on the basis of sex.

Another example - closer to the topic would a couple being refused goods or services (e.g. renting a flat) because they are unmarried and looking to live together - that would be discrimination on the grounds of marriage (which also includes being treated less favourably because you aren't married). But, this cannot apply if the service being requested is marriage, as by definition this can only be provided to people who are not married.

[Anchorman]

Sounds like a pretty standard hierarchical structure to me.

As far as I'm aware there are only about 700 commissioners who get a vote on important matters out of the entire membership. And those commissioners (again as far as I'm aware) are 'nominated' rather than elected by their local organisational structures. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but a nomination process tends to involve far fewer people than a process whereby a delegate is elected democratically by all members.

And further, as far as I can see, that commissioner is not a 'delegate', in other words required to vote in a manner agreed by the entire membership they represent, but is merely a nominated representative, akin to an MP who can vote any way they wish in parliament (albeit at least they are elected).

So, yup, looks pretty hierarchical to me - with a ordinary rank and file parishioner having pretty much zero say in the decisions actually taken at the General Assembly.

No shit Sherlock.

A constitution that embeds conservatism and is constitutionally structured to prevent change and reform - who'd have thought it within a religious organisation eh

Bit like the CofE which over years (because of a similarly constitutional structure that opposes change and reform) was unable to make the change to allow women to become Bishops even though the move was supported by a majority within the Synod and top to bottom in the organisation.

   
Liberty of conscience has been part of the Kirk since the sixteenth century.
As for 'ordinary members' not havingtheir say?
Ordinary members can meet and give a deliverance to a Kirk Session or Presbytery, speaking at both courts to argue their case - I've slept through enough sittings of Presbytery to be familiar with this avenue.
Equally, ordinary members can present an overture to Assembly arguing their point. Several such overtures, coming from ordinary members, have become part of Church law over the years.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ordinary members can meet and give a deliverance to a Kirk Session or Presbytery, speaking at both courts to argue their case - I've slept through enough sittings of Presbytery to be familiar with this avenue.

Equally, ordinary members can present an overture to Assembly arguing their point. Several such overtures, coming from ordinary members, have become part of Church law over the years.

But others higher up the hierarchy can also argue the case I presume. The difference is that those higher up have a formal say in the form of voting rights. From what you seem to be saying originally members have no voting rights while those higher up the hierarchy do, which would make the organisation both hierarchical but also proving ordinary members with very little say over decisions.

So let's cut to the chase, with simple yes/no answers.

Do ordinary members have a vote (with no more or less weighting than any other member) on the selection of the Commissioners?

Do ordinary members get to vote on the position that the Commissioner should take in a vote in the General Assembly (in other words making the Commissioner a delegate)?

Organisations that genuinely provide ordinary members with a say will, at the very least, provide their members with one or other of those rights. Some organisations will take the decision directly to the members to approve on the basis of one member, one vote.

[Outrider]

Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited. That's discrimination, right?

Are there - I'll take your word for that, it's entirely conceivable (although slightly creepy that they'd know, and slightly presumptive that cohabitation precludes the sort of chastity that they're asking for, but regardless...)

Is it discrimination - yes. Is it justifiable discrimination... well, it's not currently in the UK illegal, as I understand it, because religious institutions are granted a ridiculous amount of latitude on what social behaviours they're allowed to restrict their provision of state services for.  Is it morally justifiable - well that depends on what your moral precepts are. If you're following the outdated tribal notions of bronze-age middle-easterners (subject to liberal translations) then it probably is, but if you actually think about what makes something moral moral... probably not.

Yet it's in the interests of the individuals concerned.

Is it? Even if we give the religious adherents the benefit of the doubt and presume that they think they're acting in someone's best interests and not just exercising control to try to maintain their position of authoritarian oversight, the evidence is at best mixed.

There have been a number of papers which have reported that not having sex until marriage leads to more durable and happier marriages; however, they are prey to selection biases inasmuch as they fail to account for the religious pressure against divorce/separation amongst those waiting for marriage, and the lose proxy of long marriages for happy ones.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is it discrimination - yes. Is it justifiable discrimination... well, it's not currently in the UK illegal, as I understand it, because religious institutions are granted a ridiculous amount of latitude on what social behaviours they're allowed to restrict their provision of state services for. 

I'm not sure whether this would or would not be part of the opt-outs to equalities legislation that religious organisations get, which I agree is way too high.

To be captured within equalities legislation the discrimination would need to be based on one of the protected characteristics. Marriage is one, but living together isn't.

So if a faith school refused to employ someone, or passed them over for promotion because they were living together but not married, then this would prima face be discrimination under the law - as they would be treating someone not married (but living together as a couple) less favourably than someone who was married (but living together as a couple). However religious organisations then play the 'faith ethos' card which is an opt out for religion not provided to other organisation - effectively claiming they cannot employ that person because their lifestyle doesn't fit with their organisational ethos.

But the issue with providing a marriage service is that this cannot, by definition be discrimination on the basis of marriage, as marriage services can only be provided to those who aren't married. Hence the only discrimination would be on 'living together' which isn't a protected characteristic.

[jeremyp]

The 'right' in question is the right to a marriage service for two people of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right, unless they are underage/already married.

Imagine if you lived in a country where they said you have a right to practise a religion...

... but the only religion you were allowed to practise was Islam. From your point of view would that be a right worth having or would you consider it discrimination against Christians?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I have already rebutted the “charge” that it’s a crap analogy. Both cases alike concern rights that are made available and/or denied on the sole basis of innate characteristics. As you’ve never understood how analogies work though, there’s nothing more to discuss.
 
Nope, no idea. When Christian churches other than your own offer equal marriage, that is easily provable too. What point did you think you were making here?

Very funny.

First, as “God” is just your faith claim, you don’t get to have “since God” as your premise. The best you can have here is, “since my faith claim “god” involves a story about a deity who….” etc. 

Second, other Christian denominations will make a different statement about the same god – ie, “he’s cool with equal marriage” so yours is just one unqualified faith claim competing against others.

Third, even if by some process you could finally demonstrate both your claim “god” and that this god cares about who goes to bed with whom, still all that would tell us is that he’s a homophobe.

I don’t have to prove anything – other that is than that you espouse both a god story and associated church practices that are homophobic. 

Lying doesn’t help you here either. I’m not vague at all. What I “want” is for you to stop ducking and diving, and finally to address why you think a homophobic god story and a homophobic church are things to espouse.   

No, the law is as it is because the established church gets a free pass on various matters that are not afforded to other institutions. 

As that’s completely irrelevant, I neither know nor care. To try to drag you kicking and screaming back to the issue: the differential provision of rights on the grounds of innate characteristics (race, age, sexual orientation etc) has names – racism, ageism, homophobia etc. Your god story and your church that carries out its (supposed) god’s (supposed) wishes practices the third of these. You seem to think this is a good thing.

What does that make you?     

I disagree with your analysis of why the laws pertaining to marriage are the way they are.
Governments don't like agendas like yours that ultimately only completely serve the interest of people like you.

With churches now  providing gender neutral marriages there is now  no pointing expending time and effort chasing up people who could never give a convincing gender neutral marriage in a million years. I just have to read Gordon's thoughts to know what your agenda is. .......a series of shutting downs and locking ups and forcings out....just to keep people like yourself who are married and wouldn't want a church wedding anyway.

In reality governments don't want to give this the time of day.

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree with your analysis of why the laws pertaining to marriage are the way they are.
Governments don't like agendas like yours that ultimately only completely serve the interest of people like you.

With churches now  providing gender neutral marriages there is now  no pointing expending time and effort chasing up people who could never give a convincing gender neutral marriage in a million years. I just have to read Gordon's thoughts to know what your agenda is. .......a series of shutting downs and locking ups and forcings out....just to keep people like yourself who are married and wouldn't want a church wedding anyway.

In reality governments don't want to give this the time of day.

Lovely to see your support for the Tories.