Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

That’s all very well Hillside...

Identifying your lying and telling you to stop doing it is "all very well"?

...but how is the installation of the Tampon machines in the Bus station gents toilets getting on?

You obviously think you're making a point here. I have no idea what you think it is though.

Tell you what: rather than keep deflecting, why not instead finally try to address your homophobia?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,


This isn’t just stupid, it’s incoherent. If your church ran a bus company I would want it to offer its services equally. For some reason though you don’t think the same principle should apply to church matters. That makes you and your church homophobic.

Again, how are you going to police your idea of equality as you would like it to be applied to holy matrimony. How are you going to ensure that Jesus is front and centre during the ceremony?

You have so far declined to offer any guide on the practicalities. And no, It isn’t anybodies problem except yours.

Did you know several people have been seriously injured who are under 1 metre 50 at the Bluehillside fun fair because you did away with the height restrictions.

[Outrider]

picking out a favourite tribe? Yeh, they’ve had a great time of it haven’t they.

That he appears to have failed to come through on the promise he made is irrelevant to the fact that choosing a favourite tribe in the first place undermines the later claim to be here for everyone. It would seem amongst God's many capabilities are lack of foresight, bias and incompetence - truly we are all made in their image.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That he appears to have failed to come through on the promise he made is irrelevant to the fact that choosing a favourite tribe in the first place undermines the later claim to be here for everyone. It would seem amongst God's many capabilities are lack of foresight, bias and incompetence - truly we are all made in their image.

O.

You obviously have little or no idea about this matter.
Lack of foresight? Do you mean lack of foreskin? It would certainly make more sense than what you have written.
Take it up with God or your local rabbi.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Again, how are you going to police your idea of equality as you would like it to be applied to holy matrimony. How are you going to ensure that Jesus is front and centre during the ceremony?

Are you not reading or not comprehending here?

First, “yes it’s homophobic but I don’t see it could be fixed, so leave well alone” is a bad argument in principle.

Second, I don’t want to “ensure that Jesus is front and centre during the ceremony” at all. What I do want though is any such service that is offered to be offered equally to straight and gay couples alike. It’s simple enough isn’t it?

Third, removing from the legislation the homophobia exemptions the church enjoys would seem to be a good start I’d have thought, as for that matter would withdrawing tax breaks for homophobic churches. People used to put “No dogs, No Blacks, No Irish” signs in the windows off their B&Bs too, but we seem to have fixed that without too much difficulty. What’s so special about your homophobic clergy that we couldn’t fix that too?       

You have so far declined to offer any guide on the practicalities. And no, It isn’t anybodies problem except yours.

See above.

Did you know several people have been seriously injured who are under 1 metre 50 at the Bluehillside fun fair because you did away with the height restrictions.

More incoherent idiocy. Did you know that lots of gay people have been beaten up in the street because of a culture that you and your church espouse?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Are you not reading or not comprehending here?

First, “yes it’s homophobic but I don’t see it could be fixed, so leave well alone” is a bad argument in principle.

Second, I don’t want to “ensure that Jesus is front and centre during the ceremony” at all. What I do want though is any such service that is offered to be offered equally to straight and gay couples alike. It’s simple enough isn’t it?

Third, removing from the legislation the homophobia exemptions the church enjoys would seem to be a good start I’d have thought, as for that matter would withdrawing tax breaks for homophobic churches. People used to put “No dogs, No Blacks, No Irish” signs in the windows off their B&Bs too, but we seem to have fixed that without too much difficulty. What’s so special about your homophobic clergy that we couldn’t fix that too?       

See above.

More incoherent idiocy. Did you know that lots of gay people have been beaten up in the street because of a culture that you and your church espouse?

If you cannot police holy matrimony or the holy then you are in exactly the same position as I am.
Since you are calling me a homophobe on the strength of that, what does that make you?

[Roses]

How do you account for the number of non Christian men who cheat on their wives and husbands?

What a stupid reply, but not surprising coming from you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

If you cannot police holy matrimony or the holy then you are in exactly the same position as I am.

The position you're in is being a homophobe, and you can police it as I just explained. Start with removing the homophobia exemptions, then leave it to people to report breaches of the law as it would then be. You know, just like we did with racist B&B owners. Even you should be able to grasp this. 

Since you are calling me a homophobe on the strength of that, what does that make you?

Straw man noted. I'm calling you a homophobe because you espouse homophobic practices. I on the other hand do not. Do you get it now? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Roses,

What a stupid reply, but not surprising coming from you.

It's Vlad - what do you expect? I've never been able to work out whether he's epically stupid, epically dishonest or a mix of the two. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

The position you're in is being a homophobe, and you can police it as I just explained. Start with removing the homophobia exemptions, then leave it to people to report breaches of the law as it would then be. You know, just like we did with racist B&B owners. Even you should be able to grasp this. 

Straw man noted. I'm calling you a homophobe because you espouse homophobic practices. I on the other hand do not. Do you get it now?

Ok let me provide the answer you lack the fibre to own up to. It makes you a homophobe because we are in the same position of not being able to legislate against God himself and that is how you are defining homophobia here.

So, Do you have any evidence of ''homophobia'' above and beyond this?

With regards B and B racism. It was entirely obvious given witnesses that a service is or is not being provided. How so with Jesus being front and centre in a wedding ceremony? The B and B people, that is their complete business. Holy matrimony, not so the church.

Previously I have thought that if I were in legal difficulties and needed getting off the hook you would be the man.

After this thread I'm afraid I can no longer endorse you because of your inability to discern different contexts.

[Roses]

Roses,

It's Vlad - what do you expect? I've never been able to work out whether he's epically stupid, epically dishonest or a mix of the two.

Maybe he gets off on winding people up with his crazy posts.

[Robbie]

Christian homophobes use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness, yet turn a blind eye to the  Biblical characters who cheated on their wives. That might explain the number of oh so holy on Sunday Christians I have come across who have cheated on their wives!

..and who have cheated on their husbands?
It's not unknown.

Nobody's perfect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Ok let me provide the answer you lack the fibre to own up to. It makes you a homophobe because we are in the same position of not being able to legislate against God himself and that is how you are defining homophobia here.

What an utterly bizarre reply.

First, I cannot “lack the fibre to own up to” a completely nonsensical response.

Second, yet again you can’t have “legislate against God himself” as your premise when “God himself” is just your unqualified faith claim. I may as well introduce leprechauns as my premise for all the validity either of them has. What you’re trying to say here is, “you can’t legislate against the enactment of my preferred god story” – which of course isn’t true.

Third, I have been and continue to define homophobia in the way you describe and espouse what your church does: the denial of rights to some people on the basis of their sexual orientation that are provided to people of a different sexual orientation.   

Fourth, “OK my god is homophobic but you can’t do anything about that, so tough” is telling us only that you subscribe to a homophobic god story – no more, no less.     

So, Do you have any evidence of ''homophobia'' above and beyond this?

As “this” is just another of your straw men, yes: the evidence of your homophobia is your espousal of a homophobic god story and of the related homophobic church practices.

With regards B and B racism. It was entirely obvious given witnesses that a service is or is not being provided. How so with Jesus being front and centre in a wedding ceremony? The B and B people, that is their complete business. Holy matrimony, not so the church.

The ”holy” matrimony service is just that - a service. Either you provide it equally, or you provide it on a discriminatory basis on the ground of sexual orientation.

The B&B service is just that - a service. Either you provide it equally, or you provide it on a discriminatory basis on the ground of race.

It’s that simple. Why then is it still confusing you?
 

Previously I have thought that if I were in legal difficulties and needed getting off the hook you would be the man.

I wouldn’t represent you because witnesses have to be honest and credible.

After this thread I'm afraid I can no longer endorse you because of your inability to discern different contexts.

Except of course that’s how analogies actually work FFS: the contexts are different but the principle is the same. Try to understand this to avoid committing the same howler in future.

[Outrider]

You obviously have little or no idea about this matter.

Obviously, because you're about to point out where I'm wro... oh, wait, no, that's not how Vlad works, is it.

Lack of foresight? Do you mean lack of foreskin?

A strong rebuttal, call up the child abuse bit to reinforce the moral integrity of your sky-fairy story, good plan.

It would certainly make more sense than what you have written.

Because I could have simply toured around the cote-du-ad-hominem and popped in for lunch at Chateau non sequitur as you've apparently elected to do.

Take it up with God or your local rabbi.

Make a point, rebut a point, put up something resembling a case for something.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,


 “legislate against God himself” as your premise when “God himself” is just your unqualified faith claim

That this is holy matrimony that you are wishing to enforce makes this an usual starting point since you are seeking legislation concerning the holy and specifically the presence of God.

Effectively you want the holy to cease to be recognised except for the purposes of holy matrimony.

A change of legislation to not recognise holy matrimony which would not then be a thing would then result in only civil marriages recognised in church as lawful.

The church could then give up marriages or give civil marriages. Any thing else that is believed to be happening including holy matrimony is then merely carried out in the faith of those involved.

Marriage not occurring legally unless the celebrant is registered to perform civil marriage.
Similarly marriage would never be refused.

Third, I have been and continue to define homophobia in the way you describe and espouse what your church does: the denial of rights to some people on the basis of their sexual orientation that are provided to people of a different sexual orientation.   

Fourth, “OK my god is homophobic but you can’t do anything about that, so tough” is telling us only that you subscribe to a homophobic god story – no more, no less.     

But you have already sought to rule God out and are now trying to revive ‘holy homophobia’

The ”holy” matrimony service is just that - a service. Either you provide it equally, or you provide it on a discriminatory basis on the ground of sexual orientation.

But you have already persuaded us that holy matrimony is not even a thing Hillside because God cannot be proved.

[ProfessorDavey]

A change of legislation to not recognise holy matrimony which would not then be a thing would then result in only civil marriages recognised in church as lawful.

But the law currently doesn't recognise 'holy matrimony' it only recognises marriage. So the only bit of a marriage ceremony held in a church recognised in law is the very tiny bit involving the required legal words. There is also a requirement that the person conducting the ceremony is authorised so to do as a legal registrar and that the premises are licensed. The rest is of no interest as far a marriage legislation is concerned, and that includes all of the religious stuff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the law currently doesn't recognise 'holy matrimony' it only recognises marriage. So the only bit of a marriage ceremony held in a church recognised in law is the very tiny bit involving the required legal words. There is also a requirement that the person conducting the ceremony is authorised so to do as a legal registrar and that the premises are licensed. The rest is of no interest as far a marriage legislation is concerned, and that includes all of the religious stuff.

so that bit as you say is the only legal bit that should be imparted but to anybody. I can go along with that.

Since holy matrimony is not really a thing then why or more to the point what Is it that Hillside wants to legislate?

[ProfessorDavey]

so that bit as you say is the only legal bit that should be imparted but to anybody. I can go along with that.

But it would remain discrimination if a  church permitted a same sex couple to have the legal bit in their church but refused to allow them to provide the service of the religious ceremony while allowing opposite sex couples the option of having both elements.

But, of course, the CofE etc won't unpick the two elements (abeit only one of which is actually 'marriage' in the eyes of the law) and therefore won't allow a same sex couple to have the legal bit within a religious ceremony.

Since holy matrimony is not really a thing then why or more to the point what Is it that Hillside wants to legislate?

You will have to take that up with him, but as I've pointed out it remains discrimination on the grounds of sexuality regardless of the legality (in marriage terms) of each element as the church is treating a same sex couple less favourably on the basis of their sexuality. It is currently not unlawful discrimination as churches have an opt out of the basic provisions of the Equalities Act on this matter, however it is discrimination none the less.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it would remain discrimination if a  church permitted a same sex couple to have the legal bit in their church but refused to allow them to provide the service of the religious ceremony while allowing opposite sex couples the option of having both elements.

That isn't a service though because it is not a thing according to Hillsides opening Gambit.

It is currently not unlawful discrimination as churches have an opt out of the basic provisions of the Equalities Act on this matter, however it is discrimination none the less.

Yes it's holy homophobia apparently. So Basically Hillside wants people prosecuted for not delivering something which isn't a thing twice over.

[Gordon]

so that bit as you say is the only legal bit that should be imparted but to anybody. I can go along with that.

Since holy matrimony is not really a thing then why or more to the point what Is it that Hillside wants to legislate?

You're missing the point: this 'holy matrimony' is a (pun intended) 'service' that is offered by religious organisations in the form of an 'event' that contains both the legal elements of marriage and various add-ons of a religious nature.

The problem you are studiously avoiding is that the organisations providing this particular 'service/event', that you refer to as "holy matrimony", are seeking to limit access on a discriminatory basis by excluding certain couples on the basis of their sexuality - and that is homophobic.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're missing the point: this 'holy matrimony' is a (pun intended) 'service' that is offered by religious organisations in the form of an 'event' that contains both the legal elements of marriage and various add-ons of a religious nature.

The problem you are studiously avoiding is that the organisations providing this particular 'service/event', that you refer to as "holy matrimony", are seeking to limit access on a discriminatory basis by excluding certain couples on the basis of their sexuality - and that is homophobic.   

I'm quite willing for the legally required sections i.e. those that are demonstrable and not articles of faith claim, to be delivered in church separately. According to Hillside anything else that is deemed 'holy' cannot be demonstrated to be a thing and as the professor has pointed out is not legally recognised as matrimony. It seems therefor that nobody is being denied matrimony as long as they receive the legal service.

In terms of the non legal content. There is no legal service being performed.

I would love to see how you atheist guys would even begin to get this through and enforce it. What's the plan?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes it's holy homophobia apparently.

Indeed it is - there is no doubt about it.

So Basically Hillside wants people prosecuted for not delivering something which isn't a thing twice over.

Just because the religious elements aren't part of legal marriage doesn't mean they aren't a thing. They most definitely are - they are a service offered by religious organisations alongside a legal marriage ceremony. But that service is offered only to opposite sex couples and therefore same sex couples are treated less favourably in the provision of that service, hence it is discrimination. As I've mentioned before the law provides an opt out on the provisions of the Equalities Act so it is currently not unlawful discrimination - the discussion here is whether that opt out to religions is reasonable or amounts to a special privilege not afforded to other organisations whose fundamental ethos may also be inherently racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

In terms of the non legal content. There is no legal service being performed.

Irrelevant - the Equalities Act covers the provision of services, not 'legal' services. The delivery of the religious ceremony by a religious organisation is the provision of a service.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Irrelevant - the Equalities Act covers the provision of services, not 'legal' services. The delivery of the religious ceremony by a religious organisation is the provision of a service.

Not if one has to, according to Hillside, demonstrate the existence of the holy. If Holy is not demonstrable then nothing can be said to have been offered. There is no such thing as holy matrimony until God demonstrated. How can you then be prosecuted for something that isn't a thing? A good analogy would be sueing for not getting a laugh from an atheist comedian.
Since an atheist comedian is a contradiction in terms. One cannot expect a laugh, and should not complain when that transpires. An atheist comedian cannot offer a service. Laughs cannot be guaranteed even though I've paid good money and finally holy matrimony is not to be taken lightly therefore if one says there is no such thing as holy and then wants to prosecute for holiness undelivered then one is certainly taking it lightly and shouldn't have it anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed it is - there is no doubt about it.

But of course there is. And Hillside has introduced that doubt but starting us of on ''it doesn't exist as a thing until demonstrated.''