Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[ProfessorDavey]

But of course there is.

No there isn't - discrimination in legal terms is defined as treating someone less favourably in the provision of goods or services on the basis of one of a range of protected characteristics, one of which is sexuality. The church clearly treats gay couples less favourably that straight couples in this case as they offer a service to the latter which they refuse to offer to the former.

The argument isn't whether it is discrimination - it clearly is - the argument is about whether churches should have an opt out meaning it isn't unlawful discrimination. Regardless of whether it is lawful discrimination or unlawful discrimination it is still discrimination.

[Gordon]

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?

Good heavens you are dense today: of course the 'holy' element is a 'thing', if only in the sense that it is a component part of an event, in that certain actions/words/hymns/prayers etc that are specific to the religious aspects of a religious wedding are occurring.

Those who wish a religious wedding presumably want these religious elements - the 'holy' bit in your terms - yet you wish to deny them that because of their sexuality, which makes you homophobic - and I'm afraid no amount of wriggling gets you out of that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good heavens you are dense today: of course the 'holy' element is a 'thing', if only in the sense that it is a component part of an event, in that certain actions/words/hymns/prayers etc that are specific to the religious aspects of a religious wedding are occurring.

Those who wish a religious wedding presumably want these religious elements - the 'holy' bit in your terms - yet you wish to deny them that because of their sexuality, which makes you homophobic - and I'm afraid no amount of wriggling gets you out of that.

But you are picking and choosing elements. The holy isn't the holy without God himself. Anyone wanting anything less than that is wanting something else.

[Gordon]

But you are picking and choosing elements. The holy isn't the holy without God himself. Anyone wanting anything less than that is wanting something else.

No I'm not: as far as I can see a religious marriage is characterised by the inclusion of religious rituals (of whatever flavour), and that these rituals occur is a core aspect of a 'holy' (your term) wedding - you seek to deny access to these religious rituals on the basis of the sexuality of certain couples, and that is homophobic.

Whether or not your preferred version of 'God' exists is irrelevant to your denial of access to the religious aspects of a 'holy' (your term) marriage - which is a public legal service provided by religious organisations.

[ProfessorDavey]

The holy isn't the holy without God himself.

Well firstly let's state the obvious - there is no evidence that god even exists. But beyond that, this is a matter for the church and its 'laws' not for the laws of the land. The church can establish whatever canon law it wishes provided it doesn't conflict with the land of the law, and where it does the secular law takes precedence. That's how it works - the church is no more above the law of the land than anyone else.

[Anchorman]

No I'm not: as far as I can see a religious marriage is characterised by the inclusion of religious rituals (of whatever flavour), and that these rituals occur is a core aspect of a 'holy' (your term) wedding - you seek to deny access to these religious rituals on the basis of the sexuality of certain couples, and that is homophobic.

Whether or not your preferred version of 'God' exists is irrelevant to your denial of access to the religious aspects of a 'holy' (your term) marriage - which is a public legal service provided by religious organisations.

   


In Christian understanding, the term 'holy' means 'set apart for God.
A service of worship is set apart for God. Marriage if conducted by a Christian is a committment of two people set apart by God for a purpose.
Therefore any 'holy marriage' ceremony is a committment to God and all that entails.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well firstly let's state the obvious - there is no evidence that god even exists. But beyond that, this is a matter for the church and its 'laws' not for the laws of the land. The church can establish whatever canon law it wishes provided it doesn't conflict with the land of the law, and where it does the secular law takes precedence. That's how it works - the church is no more above the law of the land than anyone else.

And the law of the land is ''No requirement for the church to provide marriage services beyond those mentioned in scripture and tradition and current law.''
Should the law change I see no legal obligation for the church to have to provide anything but civil marriage since it would be nigh on impossible to monitor the holiness of a marriage. Something in fact you keep emphasising. You seem to want your cake and eat it.

[ProfessorDavey]

And the law of the land is ''No requirement for the church to provide marriage services beyond those mentioned in scripture and tradition and current law.''

No it isn't - the law of the land has no interest in scripture and tradition etc.

The law of the land simply states that it is unlawful for a service provider to treat an individual less favourably on the basis of their sexuality. However, in the case of a marriage ceremony religious organisations are permitted an opt out to the basic provision of the Equalities Act.

[Outrider]

And the law of the land is ''No requirement for the church to provide marriage services beyond those mentioned in scripture and tradition and current law.''

The law of the land is that free expression of religion (a philosophical choice) is put on an equal footing with sexuality, gender, race, age and disability (inherent characteristics) and the interpretation of the government of the conflict between those principles is that organised religion should be permitted to put its free expression before the right of others to equal treatment.

Should the law change I see no legal obligation for the church to have to provide anything but civil marriage since it would be nigh on impossible to monitor the holiness of a marriage.

How do you monitor the holiness of marriages now? How many church weddings produce beaten spouses, infidelity, abandonment, dishonour etc?

Something in fact you keep emphasising. You seem to want your cake and eat it.

Even if true, a more creditable stance than not wanting other people to eat cake because you've got a special imaginary cake that's somehow allergic to gay people...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The law of the land is that free expression of religion (a philosophical choice) is put on an equal footing with sexuality, gender, race, age and disability (inherent characteristics) and the interpretation of the government of the conflict between those principles is that organised religion should be permitted to put its free expression before the right of others to equal treatment.

How do you monitor the holiness of marriages now?

Through scripture, through tradition, and through spiritual discernment. How do you plan for the state to monitor it?

How many church weddings produce beaten spouses, infidelity, abandonment, dishonour etc?

How is this relevant?

[Outrider]

Through scripture, through tradition, and through spiritual discernment. How do you plan for the state to monitor it?

I don't see a need for it to be monitored at all, I'll get the ONS to put it alongside fairy interventions and unicorn maulings.

How is this relevant?

In the grand scheme, we're talking about religion, so how is any of it relevant. Specific to this discussion, you're concerned for the 'holiness' of marriage by ensuring that 'teh Gayz' don't get in, but I don't see any monitoring of the forsaking of those honour, cherish, obey kind of vows... or are they less important?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Through scripture, through tradition, and through spiritual discernment. How do you plan for the state to monitor it?

Why would the state need to monitor the veracity etc of religious claims. That isn't relevant to the discussion.

All that is required for the state to set out what is, and what is not, lawful and then allow the judicial system to follow. So currently the state has decreed that it is not unlawful for churches to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of the service of providing a marriage ceremony. However were the state to remove that opt out were someone to be turned away by a church on eh grounds of sexuality, when asking to be married then that would be unlawful and the discrimination could be challenged in the courts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would the state need to monitor the veracity etc of religious claims. That isn't relevant to the discussion.

It isn't relevent to you because you are an antitheist who wishes the end of the church by any means at hand it seems. In short. The swivel eyed revolutionary without a pragmatic thought.

Of course holiness is relevent.

All that is required for the state to set out what is, and what is not, lawful and then allow the judicial system to follow. So currently the state has decreed that it is not unlawful for churches to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of the service of providing a marriage ceremony. However were the state to remove that opt out were someone to be turned away by a church on eh grounds of sexuality, when asking to be married then that would be unlawful and the discrimination could be challenged in the courts.

I'm sorry but this just seems to be antitheist wankfantasy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see a need for it to be monitored at all, I'll get the ONS to put it alongside fairy interventions and unicorn maulings.

In the grand scheme, we're talking about religion, so how is any of it relevant. Specific to this discussion, you're concerned for the 'holiness' of marriage by ensuring that 'teh Gayz' don't get in

No i'm not you made that up. If God want's someone in he'll let them in. He is sovereign. Gay people have marriage and same sex marriages and even church weddings.

I suppose what I am saying is that the views of Christians who hold a different view of this issue are far, far, far more important than that of any shit stirring antitheism masquerading concern for anything or anyone other than there own agenda. Indeed, I've spent far to long indulging your two weak points. Your desire to eliminate the term holy only to resurrect it if there's a possible 'nick' in it, and secondly you don't realise your extreme position.

[Outrider]

No i'm not you made that up.

I've made what up, the institutional homophobia of the Christian church?

If God want's someone in he'll let them in.

Isn't Jesus' message supposed to be that he'll take all who come genuinely with love in their heart?

He is sovereign.

UK Law might not consider that to be the case.

Gay people have marriage and same sex marriages and even church weddings.

And yet churches can still discriminate (legally, currently) against them and choose to exercise the state's duty to officiate a marriage but not include those categories of people.

I suppose what I am saying is that the views of Christians who hold a different view of this issue are far, far, far more important than that of any shit stirring antitheism masquerading concern for anything or anyone other than there own agenda.

You're concerned about the theological integrity of believers and belief; I, and others like me, are concerned about the continued discrimination against segments of the populace because of intrinsic elements of their nature. You are asking people to put someone's choice about their special friend on the same level as access to public services for all. Your faith, at the end of any day, is a choice, and someone else's marriage has absolutely no effect on you or your beliefs whatsoever.

If the church wants to continue with the function of conducting state sanctioned marriages, I don't see that it should have the right to discriminate, regardless of how profoundly people believe; my belief in equality is equally as profound. Humanists, currently, have to have a registrar conduct the 'legal' parts of a wedding if they officiate, if the church wants to follow that system and the state no longer grants them the authority to act on their behalf, that would be an acceptable compromise, to me. Not ideal, but acceptable.

Indeed, I've spent far to long indulging your two weak points. Your desire to eliminate the term holy only to resurrect it if there's a possible 'nick' in it, and secondly you don't realise your extreme position.

My position isn't extreme, equality for homosexuality is pretty much the expected standard, it's embedded in the UN Charter on Human Rights, in the European Convention on Human Rights, in a multitude of legislative regimes around the world. As to whether 'holy' has any validity, of course it's nonsense, but that doesn't stop me picking up inconsistencies in arguments that are attempting to rely on it.

As to those being my 'weak' points - if they were that weak you'd have overcome them, but you haven't. I do like the attempt to channel 'The Art of War', though: where you are strong, appear weak, and where you are weak, appear strong.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've made what up, the institutional homophobia of the Christian church?

Isn't Jesus' message supposed to be that he'll take all who come genuinely with love in their heart?

UK Law might not consider that to be the case.

And yet churches can still discriminate (legally, currently) against them and choose to exercise the state's duty to officiate a marriage but not include those categories of people.

You're concerned about the theological integrity of believers and belief; I, and others like me, are concerned about the continued discrimination against segments of the populace because of intrinsic elements of their nature. You are asking people to put someone's choice about their special friend on the same level as access to public services for all. Your faith, at the end of any day, is a choice, and someone else's marriage has absolutely no effect on you or your beliefs whatsoever.

If the church wants to continue with the function of conducting state sanctioned marriages, I don't see that it should have the right to discriminate, regardless of how profoundly people believe; my belief in equality is equally as profound. Humanists, currently, have to have a registrar conduct the 'legal' parts of a wedding if they officiate, if the church wants to follow that system and the state no longer grants them the authority to act on their behalf, that would be an acceptable compromise, to me. Not ideal, but acceptable.

My position isn't extreme, equality for homosexuality is pretty much the expected standard, it's embedded in the UN Charter on Human Rights, in the European Convention on Human Rights, in a multitude of legislative regimes around the world. As to whether 'holy' has any validity, of course it's nonsense, but that doesn't stop me picking up inconsistencies in arguments that are attempting to rely on it.

As to those being my 'weak' points - if they were that weak you'd have overcome them, but you haven't. I do like the attempt to channel 'The Art of War', though: where you are strong, appear weak, and where you are weak, appear strong.

O.

continually you are ignoring God though and are stuck with the logically contradictory. " Let's get rid of the idea of holy but revive it in order to nick people I don't like. What type of "good guy" is that?

You are a rage against Goddists and that is why the law is against you because it is averse to swivel eyed extremist pressure.

I rather think, the Law has settled for your opening plea, that holy matrimony is a meaningless piece of nonsense.
To go for "Yes me lud but we also want to revive it whenever there's a possible nick to be had is just cheeky bollocks.

[ProfessorDavey]

continually you are ignoring God though and are stuck with the logically contradictory.

We are ignoring god as there is no evidence that god exists - and even for those that belief in god there are a huge number of different gods claimed to exist that have different claimed attributes and expectation. So we are no more ignoring god than you are ignoring Vishnu.

And further, as we are talking about the law, the law also ignores god. The law is silent on the existence of god or gods, the law is silent on the veracity or otherwise of theistic faith claims. That is because the law is based on evidence and faith claims are, necessarily, not based on evidence. Where the law does intervene is to protect individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs or lack of beliefs. But that is about a focus on the human rights of individual people rather than any interest in god or the veracity of faith claims per se.

[Outrider]

continually you are ignoring God though and are stuck with the logically contradictory. " Let's get rid of the idea of holy but revive it in order to nick people I don't like. What type of "good guy" is that?

I'm no more ignoring 'God' than I'm ignoring Zeus, Allah or Aslan. You can drop 'holy' in as much as you like, but it's a meaningless symbol implemented to try to shut down discussion.

You are a rage against Goddists and that is why the law is against you because it is averse to swivel eyed extremist pressure.

I'm not raging at all, I'm involved in a broadly light-hearted online discussion forum; I'm not levelling unfounded accusations of emotional distress, I'm not out in the streets, I'm just a guy chatting with people on the internet. As to 'extremism', where's the extremism in thinking that people deserve equal treatment based on their inherent characteristics? Where's the extremism in thinking that people deserve equal treatment based on their broad philosophical stances?

I rather think, the Law has settled for your opening plea, that holy matrimony is a meaningless piece of nonsense.

No, unfortunately the law has opted to consider 'holy' matrimony to be a justifiable claim, and to hold it (and other purely philosophical stances that invoke religion, but not other philosophical stances) as warranting equal protection with inherited characteristics like skin colour or sexuality. If they hadn't made that bone-headed move we'd be fine, but instead we have this perceived conflict of people's right to be gay with the notion that people have a right to expect rational people to accommodate their belief in fairy tales.

To go for "Yes me lud but we also want to revive it whenever there's a possible nick to be had is just cheeky bollocks.

Anybody here speak English?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm no more ignoring 'God' than I'm ignoring Zeus, Allah or Aslan. You can drop 'holy' in as much as you like, but it's a meaningless symbol implemented to try to shut down discussion.

Au contraire Rodney, Au contraire......You’re still wanting to stop the game immediately after the starting whistle and then run back on the pitch to score the winning goal.
If there is no legal evidence for the holy then it is illogical to say it is demonstrably being provided or denied.
And that is why the law is as it is.

When the Church in Sweden voted to conduct same sex marriages they did so on the basis that no dissenting clergyman or woman had to take part.

The Swedish PM wondered why these clerics weren’t made to. Do you see then where he crossed the line into this, for him, being a control issue. One could argue he revealed his true concern

[Outrider]

Au contraire Rodney, Au contraire......You’re still wanting to stop the game immediately after the starting whistle and then run back on the pitch to score the winning goal.

Sprechen sie Deutsch? Parlais-vous Francais?
 

If there is no legal evidence for the holy then it is illogical to say it is demonstrably being provided or denied.

Uh, what? Do you mean proven? It's not that there's no legal evidence, it's that there's not only no evidence of any sort, there's no sense to the claim whatsoever.

And that is why the law is as it is.

No, the law is as it is because the Tory government that implemented it was pandering to what they feel is a valuable demographic for them electorally.

When the Church in Sweden voted to conduct same sex marriages they did so on the basis that no dissenting clergyman or woman had to take part.

No-one should be compelled to take part in a ceremony.

The Swedish PM wondered why these clerics weren’t made to. Do you see then where he crossed the line into this, for him, being a control issue. One could argue he revealed his true concern

He's in the wrong, no-one should be forced to take part. The church, on the other hand, if it's conducting state work by officiating state-sanctioned contracts should be forced. Organisations are not people.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

If there is no legal evidence for the holy then it is illogical to say it is demonstrably being provided or denied.

What is being provided or denied is the service of a marriage ceremony - the involvement or otherwise of god is irrelevant and of no interest to the law.

Let's use an analogy - homeopathy. There is no evidence that it works, although some people believe it does. Homeopathy effectively relies on a faith claim, similar to religion. If a homeopathy service provider refuses to provide their service to black people do you think that the law will be concerned about whether or not homeopathy works? Of course not - they will be interested solely in the notion that a person has been treated less favourably in the provision of a service (homeopathy, regardless of whether it works or not) on the basis of a protected characteristic (race).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is being provided or denied is the service of a marriage ceremony

No it's holy matrimony. If you take away the holy then goodness knows what the vicar, Bride and Groom are playing at. But one suspects that if you've passed this off as the practice of dangerous idiots then to want it not only provided but it's provision enforced is sheer madness on your part. And that is why the law is as it is.

Now you may argue that there is something about this strange ritual that causes it to fall under the principle of equality (otherwise this is just swivel eyed atheists wanting to stick one on the church). There though is the rub, It's not that Christians are out to get Gays , but that they, and others, DO NOT fall under the scriptural and traditional principle of holy matrimony as are many others for instance those who have a ''lawful and just impediment'', those who are ''ill advised'', those who are ''taking this lightly,'' Polygamists, bigamists.

Let's use an analogy - homeopathy. There is no evidence that it works, although some people believe it does. Homeopathy effectively relies on a faith claim, similar to religion. If a homeopathy service provider refuses to provide their service to black people do you think that the law will be concerned about whether or not homeopathy works? Of course not - they will be interested solely in the notion that a person has been treated less favourably in the provision of a service (homeopathy, regardless of whether it works or not) on the basis of a protected characteristic (race).

There is nothing about homeopathy that precludes black people from having it. There is no link between homeopathy and race whatsoever. Any racial discrimination must come directly from the dark heart of the Homeopath. Shite analogy. And let's be honest, you'd want to legislate against homeopathy as a medical scam.

[Aruntraveller]

So is there something about religion that precludes gay people getting married?

If there is, do you agree with it?

If you do agree with it, we can take all your protestations about being in favour of some kind of gay marriage as so much fertiliser for the garden.

If you don't, then you are in conflict with your religion and need to sort yourself out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So is there something about religion that precludes gay people getting married?

They do not, in scripture, seem to fall under fall under the scriptural terms of holy matrimony. However no religion can IMV lay claim to the term marriage.

If there is, do you agree with it?

I have not had any revelation, discernment or insight to think contrary in terms of holy matrimony

If you do agree with it, we can take all your protestations about being in favour of some kind of gay marriage as so much fertiliser for the garden.

No, that is profound bollocks. I am in favour of Gay civil marriage and would go to war if an invading force made it part of a package to change that status quo.

If you don't, then you are in conflict with your religion and need to sort yourself out.

You strike me as the sort of bloke who would like to see arrests, fines, Bans, shutting downs, coercion in preference to the mild inconvenience of Christian gays who might have to see the methodist minister for a wedding service.
Also there is something you said about conflict with ones religion and sorting oneself out. I see this as a gambit that if used against Gay christians may constitute something potentially coercive I don't believe to be to healthy. You are though by no means the only atheist here to use this gambit.

Am I right? if not how do you propose to handle legislating for all clergy to deliver holy matrimony to all?

[Aruntraveller]

You strike me as the sort of bloke who would like to see arrests, fines, Bans, shutting downs, coercion in preference to the mild inconvenience of Christian gays who might have to see the methodist minister for a wedding service.

Laughable.

I posted this some time ago. You either ignored it or missed it. It explains my position:

As the number of gay Christians on the board is not relevant I'm struggling to see how you think that this is a useful statement.

As to my atheist mission....have you been watching too many Tom Cruise films, perhaps?

I don't get up in the morning and plan my day around how I can heinously upset you. I respond to whatever is posted. No mission. Not even much of an agenda, just trying to point out that you sound just a little bit prejudiced on this subject.

To be clear (as you seem to have problems with understanding nuance within a subject) that's not the same as somebody who beats a gay person to death, or harasses them on the street, or even posts I've see by others on here in the past.

You just sound a little bit prejudiced is all.

Now I think about myself and my attitude to religious people. Do I campaign to stop them going to Church? No. Do I campaign to stop them marrying in Church? No. Do I do anything to stop them following their religion? No. The only thing I ask is that religious people drop the prejudice they hold against gay people who are religious and give them the same respect as other people in the Church.

Is that understandable as an explanation of my position?

Does that really sound to you as if I am into arrests, fines and all the other nonsense you accused me of?