Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Gordon]

.just to keep people like yourself who are married and wouldn't want a church wedding anyway.

I had a church wedding (St George's Tron, Buchanan St, Glasgow on 27th February 1974).

[ProfessorDavey]

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

On that you are correct - because they are terrified of upsetting the religious lobby which has power, influence and privileges way beyond that reasonable for organisations whose collective active membership represents about 5% of the population.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lovely to see your support for the Tories.

Ludicrous assumption. But the thought process which  reached it explain a lot.

[Nearly Sane]

Ludicrous assumption. But the thought process which  reached it explain a lot.

It's not an assumption. It's provable. You expressed admiration for the govt passing same sex marriage, which the Tories led. You have your cheerleader uniform on, and are wanting a D A V I D C A M E R O N.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not an assumption. It's provable. You expressed admiration for the govt passing same sex marriage, which the Tories led. You have your cheerleader uniform on, and are wanting a D A V I D C A M E R O N.

Actually, extending marriage to same sex couples was one of the few good things the Cameron government did. And I think it was something he personally was committed to rather than being a sop to his LibDem coalition partners. Credit where credit is due.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I had a church wedding (St George's Tron, Buchanan St, Glasgow on 27th February 1974).

Would you do the same again Gordon?, have a church wedding?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have your cheerleader uniform on,

A thought that even makes my stomach churn.....but whatever floats your boat.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On that you are correct - because they are terrified of upsetting the religious lobby which has power, influence and privileges

Voters, prof, voters. Plus people who have a live and let live attitude and recognise that the motivation for demanding HM from people who feel they can't oblige (when there are plenty of people available who feel they can way) is mostly dogmatic and a designed piece of mischief.

[Gordon]

Would you do the same again Gordon?, have a church wedding?

I've no plans to re-marry (Mrs G says no).

Seriously - yes I would, since I did it to please my late (and much missed) mother-in-law who was a church-goer at St George's Tron: she was a widow, and I was marrying her only child, and we'd only known each other for around 8 weeks when we married (we met on Hogmanay 1973), and though neither of us was remotely religious we decided that we should accede to my mother-in-law's request and did so with, I hope, good grace.
 



 

 

[Anchorman]

I had a church wedding (St George's Tron, Buchanan St, Glasgow on 27th February 1974).

     



A couple of years back, the minister, Kirk Session and most of the congregation left the Tron and the Cof S over what they saw as a diminution of the Kirk's doctrine.
To maintain the fiction of a continuing congregation, Glasgow Presbytery parachuted in a 'new frontiers' ministry and asked members of nearby congregations to move ship. The original congregation is now an independent presbyterian church, as far as I know, seeking to join the Free Church.

[ProfessorDavey]

Voters, prof, voters.

Non religious people are voters too Vlad, or are you only interested in the views of religious voters.

Plus people who have a live and let live attitude ...

You are having a laugh Vlad - religions, throughout the years have been in favour of banning this, and banning that and not just for their own congregations, but for everyone. The idea that people with a 'live and let live attitude' would align themselves with organisations that fought tooth and nail to prevent same sex couples from being able to marry is, frankly, ludicrous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So I took the time to dismantle your last set of mistakes, and in reply you’ve just ignored almost all of it. You’ll never change will 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.

To the contrary, “Governments” (ie, our Government) do “like agendas like” mine – that why we have equalities legislation. What they also do though is kowtow to the disproportionate and unwarranted influence of the religious by allowing them exemptions so they can perpetuate their ancient bigotries unimpeded.   

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.

There were people who wouldn’t have married mixed race couples in a million years too. Presumably you wouldn’t have expended time and effort chasing them either then?   

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.

Don’t forget that my agenda also includes eating babies for breakfast and burning down houses occupied by ginger people. If you’re going to make up abject shit about other peoples’ supposed “agendas” you may as well go all in.

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

While you seem comfortable in your homophobia, nonetheless the point is that the Government shouldn't be. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non religious people are voters too Vlad, or are you only interested in the views of religious voters.
You are having a laugh Vlad - religions, throughout the years have been in favour of banning this, and banning that and not just for their own congregations, but for everyone. The idea that people with a 'live and let live attitude' would align themselves with organisations that fought tooth and nail to prevent same sex couples from being able to marry is, frankly, ludicrous.

That's not what I said.

Hillside thinks the law is how it is because the secular Government is in cahoots with the church.
I say that they have made the calculation that passing laws that let swivel eyed Dawkinsian inspired antitheists or people wanting revenge on the church home in on priests many of whom would have rendered good service to their wider communities to hound them and have them removed and prosecuted, would not be a good look.

When faced with the question is this an atheist wank fantasy or something else? they decided on the best course.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
   

There were people who wouldn’t have married mixed race couples in a million years too. Presumably you wouldn’t have expended time and effort chasing them either then?   

My question is why are they not marrying mixed race couples? Somebody who believes in gender important marriage would definitely marry them. Are you by any chance trying to conflate racist marriage with gender important marriage? I notice you yourself are in a gender important marriage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's not what I said.

Hillside thinks the law is how it is because the secular Government is in cahoots with the church.

Wrong terminology, but essentially yes - as a statement of legislative fact, the religious get various exemptions from equalities legislation. 

I say that they have made the calculation that passing laws that let swivel eyed Dawkinsian inspired antitheists or people wanting revenge on the church home in on priests many of whom would have rendered good service to their wider communities to hound them and have them removed and prosecuted.

Utterly Upminster (ie, beyond Barking).

When faced with the question is this an atheist wank fantasy or something else? they decided on the best course.

Are you feeling unwell or something? Back from your fantasy land ravings: in 2010 the Government passed legislation that protects various characteristics against discriminatory practices. It also included in that legislation various exemptions for religious denominations. You think that's a good thing. I don't.

All clear now?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My question is why are they not marrying mixed race couples?

And my answer remains that it doesn't matter. First you need to identify the bigotry for what it is. How people try to justify their bigotry is a different matter. 

Somebody who believes in gender important marriage would definitely marry them. Are you by any chance trying to conflate racist marriage with gender important marriage? I notice you yourself are in a gender important marriage.

Could you at least try to keep up? I'm "conflating" (ie, analogising) rights offered and denied on the basis of innate characteristics. Whether the innate characteristics happen to be sex, age, sexual orientation, race etc is neither here nor there.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And my answer remains that it doesn't matter. First you need to identify the bigotry for what it is.   

And what in your view is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 It also included in that legislation various exemptions for religious denominations. You think that's a good thing. I don't.

All clear now?   

Yes the law is on my side and don't forget it.
As for bigotted I believe that gender neutral marriage should be allowed as Gender important marriages should be allowed. What is your problem with Gender important marriage considering you have one?

[Aruntraveller]

Yes the law is on my side and don't forget it.

You sound like a fucking tory.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And what in your view is it?

Homophobia.

Yes the law is on my side and don't forget it.

Currently yes it is - the law is indeed on the side of homophobes like you in some cases. My point though is that it shouldn't be.

And don't forget it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You sound like a fucking tory.

I thought they made a noise like ooh, ooh, ooh, Gina, my Willie's moving without me touching it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As for bigotted I believe that gender neutral marriage should be allowed as Gender important marriages should be allowed. What is your problem with Gender important marriage considering you have one?

You also believe that some rights and services should be available and/or denied solely on the ground of sexual orientation.

That particular bigotry has a name: homophobia. You're for it and I'm not.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Homophobia.

Currently yes it is - the law is indeed on the side of homophobes like you in some cases. My point though is that it shouldn't be.

As for me being bigotted. I have no objection to Gender neutral marriage wherever it happens. So how can I be homophobic? What is your problem with Gender important marriage considering you have one.

[Aruntraveller]

Just as an aside:

Gender Neutral Marriage?

Gender Important Marriage?

I am going to add those to the growing list of nonsense terms that are used to muddy the waters of any reasonable debate.

See also: Non-binary, Pansexual, Terf, cis, etc.

It's marriage, just marriage.

Fucks sake.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You also believe that some rights and services should be available and/or denied solely on the ground of sexual orientation.

Not solely. I believe that people who don't believe Gender neutral religious marriage is even a thing because there is no scriptural injunction for it should not be indulging in it because of meaninglessness. 
Now that, I'm afraid doesn't solely apply to gender neutral marriage but also to polygamists. You of course want the wholesale destruction of the church and religion.