Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I missed the bit where Jesus said that shrimps and haircuts were now fine, but woe betide anyone he catches with a dictionary...

O.

or the radically changing Stonewall definition of the word homophobia.

I missed the bit where terminological disagreement became “Fear” and “Hatred”

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

or the radically changing Stonewall definition of the word homophobia.

I missed the bit where terminological disagreement became “Fear” and “Hatred”

Educate yourself:

“Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and ignorance, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5]

Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece - from the 8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD) - have been termed homophobia by scholars, and it is used to describe an intolerance towards homosexuality and homosexuals that grew during the Middle Ages, especially by adherents of Islam and Christianity,[13] the term itself is relatively new.[14]”


“Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,[15] the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, phóbos, meaning "fear", "morbid fear" or "aversion".[16][17][18] Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[14] The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay.[14]”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Educate yourself:

“Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and ignorance, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5]

Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece - from the 8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD) - have been termed homophobia by scholars, and it is used to describe an intolerance towards homosexuality and homosexuals that grew during the Middle Ages, especially by adherents of Islam and Christianity,[13] the term itself is relatively new.[14]”


“Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,[15] the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, phóbos, meaning "fear", "morbid fear" or "aversion".[16][17][18] Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[14] The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay.[14]”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology

Have you considered where your doctrine of absolute equality ends, I gave you an example
and your doctrine of digital and absolute heinous ness which ends up in blunting any argument. Of course absolute heinous ness requires an absolute morality. So either you have one or your anger over this issue is in part ersatz aka weaponising homosexuality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Have you considered where your doctrine of absolute equality ends, I gave you an example
and your doctrine of digital and absolute heinous ness which ends up in blunting any argument. Of course absolute heinous ness requires an absolute morality. So either you have one or your anger over this issue is in part ersatz aka weaponising homosexuality.

What does any of this incoherent (and borderline deranged) gibberish have to do with your homophobia?

[Aruntraveller]

Enough of this nonsense. Homophobia exists not as some minor inconvenience to you Walt for antitheist to beat you round the head with (which they don't anyway), or as a linguistic trick to be turned and defined in tortuous, ill thought out ways.

It exists as a threat of harassment, violence and on some occasions death.

Two of those I have been subjected to in the past. The third I haven't.

Although I doubt between you and Spud that you've got enough brain cells to work out which one does not apply.

To criticise people for caring enough to actually challenge prejudiced views is to my mind not good enough. Similarly to nit pic over such a serious term to prove some point that only you've conjured up in your heinous head for fuck knows what reason tells me that you aren't actually bothered about the real effects of homophobia but just want to carry on with your endless rounds of pathetic, pointless, point scoring.

[Roses]

Have you considered where your doctrine of absolute equality ends, I gave you an example
and your doctrine of digital and absolute heinous ness which ends up in blunting any argument. Of course absolute heinous ness requires an absolute morality. So either you have one or your anger over this issue is in part ersatz aka weaponising homosexuality.

You are a very unpleasant piece of work.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Roses,

You are a very unpleasant piece of work.

Vlad is a Christian (or so he claims). He's also deeply unchristian. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Have you considered where your doctrine of absolute equality ends,

You either have equality or you don't have equality - that is self evident. So there is no point in adding absolute as equality that isn't absolute is ... err ... not equality.

[Roses]

Roses,

Vlad is a Christian (or so he claims). He's also deeply unchristian.

I have come across so called 'Christians' like Vlad many times in my life. If Jesus had been a decent kind of bloke he wouldn't have wanted anything to do with them.

[Outrider]

I missed the bit where terminological disagreement became “Fear” and “Hatred”

"... or discrimination against..." It's right there in the list, posted by Trent, you didn't even have to go looking for it, someone else has done the work for you. It must have taken more effort to selectively partially quote that than to just admit that language shifts with time.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Enough of this nonsense. Homophobia exists not as some minor inconvenience to you Walt for antitheist to beat you round the head with (which they don't anyway), or as a linguistic trick to be turned and defined in tortuous, ill thought out ways.

It exists as a threat of harassment, violence and on some occasions death.

Two of those I have been subjected to in the past. The third I haven't.

Although I doubt between you and Spud that you've got enough brain cells to work out which one does not apply.

To criticise people for caring enough to actually challenge prejudiced views is to my mind not good enough. Similarly to nit pic over such a serious term to prove some point that only you've conjured up in your heinous head for fuck knows what reason tells me that you aren't actually bothered about the real effects of homophobia but just want to carry on with your endless rounds of pathetic, pointless, point scoring.

The trouble with digital absolute heinousness Trent is that you are either absolutely heinous or you are not heinous at all. With the doctrine everyone who comes under your definition is the equivalent of homophobic murderer. That weakens antihomophobia in my view. It also allows who merely disagree with you to be turned into people who apparently hate and fear homosexuals or whoever.

That may wash in student politics among unformed young adults but not wider.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"... or discrimination against..." It's right there in the list, posted by Trent, you didn't even have to go looking for it, someone else has done the work for you. It must have taken more effort to selectively partially quote that than to just admit that language shifts with time.

O.

Yes, Discrimination against.

[Aruntraveller]

The trouble with digital absolute heinousness Trent is that you are either absolutely heinous or you are not heinous at all. With the doctrine everyone who comes under your definition is the equivalent of homophobic murderer. That weakens antihomophobia in my view. It also allows who merely disagree with you to be turned into people who apparently hate and fear homosexuals or whoever.

That may wash in student politics among unformed young adults but not wider.

Nice try but no cigar.

Have I ever said that under my definition they are all the equivalent of homophobic murderers? I think not. So cut the bullshit. Stop inventing fancy new phrases that mean nothing.

If a woman is attacked in the street and raped by neanderthals I don't classify them as woman hating murderers, I classify them as woman hating rapists.

Do you have a problem with different categories of crime?

It's really simple. You either think homophobia is acceptable. Or you don't. There. Not difficult at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Yes, Discrimination against.

Yes - denying a right to some people that you provide to others solely on the ground of an innate characteristic is discrimination "against" the former.

This shouldn't be hard to grasp, even for you.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

The trouble with digital absolute heinousness Trent is that you are either absolutely heinous or you are not heinous at all. With the doctrine everyone who comes under your definition is the equivalent of homophobic murderer. That weakens antihomophobia in my view. It also allows who merely disagree with you to be turned into people who apparently hate and fear homosexuals or whoever.

That may wash in student politics among unformed young adults but not wider.

What bizarre hall of mirrors world of reinvention have you indulged in now. No-one has suggested that the homophobic practices you espouse are equivalent to espousing homophobic murder, though they are on the same spectrum. After all, once you've convinced yourself that homophobia in one form is a good thing, what rationale have you for arguing that it's wrong in principle in another?     

[Nearly Sane]

The trouble with digital absolute heinousness Trent is that you are either absolutely heinous or you are not heinous at all. With the doctrine everyone who comes under your definition is the equivalent of homophobic murderer. That weakens antihomophobia in my view. It also allows who merely disagree with you to be turned into people who apparently hate and fear homosexuals or whoever.

That may wash in student politics among unformed young adults but not wider.

Just as Johnson's and Patel's validation of racist attitudes have caused issues with the racist attackcks on black English footballers, your beliefs that gay people should be treated as inferiors in your church causes issues with attacks on gay people. Why do you think trentvoyager should be treated as an inferior by your church?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As atheists you, Hillside and Trent are demanding that same sex couples are entitled to holy matrimony.
And yet by your behaviour and statements have failed to discriminate between holy matrimony and matrimony.

First according to you God is irrelevant. It has been put to you however that God is the most important element hear, and since God is personal and sovereign we come to the second point. How are you going to be monitoring if a holy matrimony is taking place considering the only data is scriptural and traditional.
How do you know. How are you going to check and if that sort of God thing doesn't matter  why are you fiercely self contradicting?

Holy matrimony isn't a right for anyone but a gift.It is not a service in the sense that other things are a service and the Church is not a business or a service provider.

Lastly we may have people who may want to deliver same sex holy matrimony but feel that God has not reversed the scriptural definition and that any words mouthed by them are of no use except to satisfy the remote totalitarian dogmatism of atheists like yourself.

That is imv the equivalent of making somebody say something they don't believe in.

That is a description of you gentleman. Sorry if it doesn't flatter.

The best arbiters of this situation have got to be people and priests who genuinely believe in God who are approaching the occasion of holy matrimony.

And that is unlikely to include card carrying atheists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VtH,

As atheists you, Hillside and Trent are demanding that same sex couples are entitled to holy matrimony.

Wrong again. The issue isnt about atheism, and nor for that matter is it about “holy” matrimony. What it’s actually about is whether or not rights (any rights) should be available to some but denied to others solely on the ground if an innate characteristic, in this case sexual orientation.
 

And yet by your behaviour and statements have failed to discriminate between holy matrimony and matrimony.

Irrelevant. It’s your distinction, and you're welcome to have it – the point though is that you espouse the former being denied to gay people. Try to remember this – it’s what makes you a homophobe. 

First according to you God is irrelevant. It has been put to you however that God is the most important element hear,…

Yes, we know you to think there to be a homophobic god. That’s not helping you though.

…and since God is personal and sovereign we come to the second point.

Wrong again. The most you can say here is something like, “since the god story in which I believe entails a god who’s personal and sovereign”. Try to remember this too. Faith claims aren’t premises unless you can justify them.
 

How are you going to be monitoring if a holy matrimony is taking place considering the only data is scriptural and traditional.
How do you know. How are you going to check and if that sort of God thing doesn't matter  why are you fiercely self contradicting?

No-one is “self-contradicting”, and you’re “going to know” if gay couples request “holy” matrimony and are denied while straight people are not. Obviously.   

Holy matrimony isn't a right for anyone but a gift.It is not a service in the sense that other things are a service and the Church is not a business or a service provider.

Yes it is, and calling it a “gift” doesn’t help you either – yet again: denying rights, services, goods etc to some people solely on the grounds of same sex attraction is homophobic whether or not you call it a “gift” or anything else.

Lastly we may people who may want to this but feel that God has not reversed the scriptural definition and that any words mouthed by them are of no use except to satisfy the remote totalitarian dogmatism of atheists like yourself.

Incoherent gibberish. From what I can make of the wreckage though, you’re back to trying the “not me guv, it’s my homophobic god wot makes me do it” defence.     

That is imv the equivalent of making somebody say something they don't believe in.

No it isn’t. It’s actually just saying that homophobia is a bad thing. 

That is a description of you gentleman. Sorry if it doesn't flatter.

No, it’s just another of your lies.

The best arbiters of this situation have got to be people and priests who genuinely believe in God who are approaching the occasion of holy matrimony.

That’s like arguing that the best arbiters of racist policies are the racists. Religions exist within societies, and their practices affect those societies. Your pernicious homophobic god story and homophobic church that implements it give licence to people who would enact their homophobia in more violent ways.

What aren’t you ashamed of that? What aren’t you ashamed of yourself?   

And that is unlikely to include card carrying atheists.

The KKK is unlikely to include any card-carrying civil rights activists too. So? 

[Aruntraveller]

Holy matrimony isn't a right for anyone but a gift.It is not a service in the sense that other things are a service and the Church is not a business or a service provider.

That's funny. Really funny.

They don't charge for weddings. Hahahahaha.

You should get on the stage before it wears off.

The C of E sure sounds like a business to me:

The Church of England has a large endowment of £8.7 billion which generates approximately £1 billion a year in income (2019),[1] this is their largest source of revenue. The 2019 Financial report showed that the size of the endowment has been steady or growing slightly in recent years, delivering a return of 10% (2019). In recent years, efforts have been made to make the Church's investments more ethical,[2] by divesting from major arms manufacturers and divesting all fossil fuel investments in 2020.[3] The Church of England has been criticized in the past for investments in arms dealers, unethical loan companies and companies with poor environmental records[4] – however, the Church of England is now committed to being a strong ethical investor.

The Church's Endowment fund is invested in a diversified portfolio across a broad range of asset classes. This includes a variety of equity investments in publicly listed and private companies as well as commercial/residential property and land.[5]

As I said before, and as ever you sidestepped, it's simple. You either think homophobia is a good thing. Or you don't. You either think racism is a good thing or you don't. Continue with any number of issues.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is not a service in the sense that other things are a service and the Church is not a business or a service provider.

Really - and there was me thinking that the services that the CofE provides are called 'Services' e.g. on your average Sunday or a wedding Service, Funeral Service etc.

And equalities legislation doesn't just apply to businesses that are 'for profit' it also applies to non profit making organisations including charities. And the CofE is one of the largest charities about and receives huge tax breaks, including massive reductions in business rates above and beyond those that other charities get. So the CofE should be subject to equalities legislation in the same manner as any other charitable organisation.

The bottom line if the CofE likes all the benefits it gets from some legislation (Charity law) but wants opt outs from other legislation (Equalities law). Sounds like double standards to me.

[Aruntraveller]

The best arbiters of this situation have got to be people and priests who genuinely believe in God who are approaching the occasion of holy matrimony.

I have friends who are gay and religious. In fact, as far as I am concerned an alarming number of gay people have this unfortunate side to their nature. Be that as it may, why are you promoting discrimination against religious gay people?

I could understand you calling me out for hypocrisy if I was arguing it for myself. I'm not. I actually don't give a toss for myself. The Church can continue on it's little pathetic discriminatory way if it were just me. It's not.

I'm arguing for it for the numerous gay people who seem to think they have a place within the Church, a Church that insists on treating them as second class in some aspects as reflected by your position on this matter.

[Enki]

Vlad,

Holy Matrimony simply means a Christian marriage. If a church excludes gay people from this because it doesn't accept gay people can have a Christian marriage in their church, then they are discriminating against gay people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Homophobia encompasses discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their same gender sexual relations, hence religious homophobia is practised by some churches. If you support such discrimination, then it is accurate to call you a religious homophobe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Holy Matrimony simply means a Christian marriage.

And what do you think that means?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - and there was me thinking that the services that the CofE provides are called 'Services' e.g. on your average Sunday or a wedding Service, Funeral Service etc.

[/quoteI just knew someone would make this foolish conflation

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Holy Matrimony simply means a Christian marriage. If a church excludes gay people from this because it doesn't accept gay people can have a Christian marriage in their church, then they are discriminating against gay people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Homophobia encompasses discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their same gender sexual relations, hence religious homophobia is practised by some churches. If you support such discrimination, then it is accurate to call you a religious homophobe.

I wonder if Tom Robinson, performer , gay and gay rights activist had a holy matrimonial Service or whether one would be denied to him and his wife. I think not if they were Christians. If not, whither sexual orientation?