Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Laughable.

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

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

well then, if you do not want nicks, then I have got you wrong sir and you have my unalloyed apologies. How then do you propose to deal with troublesome priests under any new law.

There is still though this sinister gambit of telling people to sort themselves out. Advice I would add from a position.

[Aruntraveller]

You've come along way in life if you've not been told to sort yourself out before. Happens to me every so often. Not sinister. More sort of make your mind up.

I don't propose to deal with any troublesome priests, and indeed I do not propose a new law. I'd much rather they recognise their prejudice and just stop it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've come along way in life if you've not been told to sort yourself out before. Happens to me every so often. Not sinister. More sort of make your mind up.

I don't propose to deal with any troublesome priests, and indeed I do not propose a new law. I'd much rather they recognise their prejudice and just stop it.

Unfortunately it is a world where sometimes we fall under some principle and sometimes we don’t.
If there is a change in the church I only hope it is not under coercion from antitheists with an agenda.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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?

Been away for a few days down on the beautiful Devon coast, so it’ll be interesting to see whether you’ve still just ignored everything you’ve been corrected on and stuck with flat out lying to deflect from that. Let’s see shall we?

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.

And sure enough, that’s exactly what you’ve done. Yet again, “according to Hillside” of course the “holy” matrimony service “is a thing”. It’s a service in which specific words are said, rites performed, incantations made and for all I know or care goats are slaughtered and men dressed in frocks hop backwards in very small circles. Fine. Call that “holy” if you like, or indeed call it “banana-flavoured” or “uy8o76oy” if you prefer. For that matter, feel free to tell yourself too that there’s something called “god” and that this supposed god thinks this type of service is the Mr Whippy 99 ice cream with the flake in version, rather than the plain old inferior cornet.

Here’s the thing though: according to you and to your church, this supposed god only wants to make the Mr Whippy 99 version available to straight people, and for it to be denied to gay people who may also want it. That’s the homophobic part right?

Got it now? Good. You won’t need lie about that again then will you.     

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

Yes there is. I’ve even been to a few, so I know they happen.

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

It’s “equality guys”, not “atheist guys” and “the plan” is the same one that was used for racist B&B owners. Just remove the homophobic exemptions from the equalities legislation, and rely on folks to report to the relevant authorities clerics who break the law.

It worked for racist B&B owners, so why not for homophobic priests?

Simple right?     

[Outrider]

Unfortunately it is a world where sometimes we fall under some principle and sometimes we don’t.

We always fall under some principal or other, it's a matter of whether we acknowledge it, understand it, accept it and apply it.

If there is a change in the church I only hope it is not under coercion from antitheists with an agenda.

Forgetting, for a moment, the vanishing rarity of 'antitheists'... Why? If that's what it takes to make the church better, to either acknowledge a principal their failing to currently, or to better understand it, or  to apply it where they aren't currently, why does it matter who it is that motivates the change? Surely, if the church is better for it, it doesn't matter where it comes from?

Might even be one of those things that Church can misattribute the benefit from with a 'God works in mysterious ways' bit of post-hoc rationalisation?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

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.

Fine – if that’s what “Christians” want to believe, it’s no-one’s business but their own. 

Therefore any 'holy marriage' ceremony is a committment to God and all that entails.

Ah, but now you’ve gone off the rails: that “therefore” is a non sequitur. Anyone can believe anything they like, but you cannot just jump straight to that thing being true with no justifying argument to take you there. The most you can say here is “therefore any “holy marriage” ceremony reflects some beliefs about a commitment to God and all that entails.”

Nothwithstanding all that though you’re still asserting a homophobic god narrative in any case, which isn’t helping your case.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anchs,

Fine – if that’s what “Christians” want to believe, it’s no-one’s business but their own. 

Ah, but now you’ve gone off the rails: that “therefore” is a non sequitur. Anyone can believe anything they like, but you cannot just jump straight to that thing being true with no justifying argument to take you there. The most you can say here is “therefore any “holy marriage” ceremony reflects some beliefs about a commitment to God and all that entails.”

Nothwithstanding all that though you’re still asserting a homophobic god narrative in any case, which isn’t helping your case.       

Do you not even have one inkling of the absurdity of wanting to eliminate the idea of the Holy and then wish to charge and prosecute people for not providing something that is holy? Do you not have one scintilla of how idiotic that is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Forgetting, for a moment, the vanishing rarity of 'antitheists'...

Are they on their way out, then?

Vlad punches air, yodels the muster signal, bullocks, fatted calves are slaughtered in front of humanist vegetarians tied to posts. A great fire is lit, mongolian yak horn combos and Alabaman charismatic shofar blowers strike up a joyous tone and drunken cossacks burst into their routine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you not even have one inkling of the absurdity of wanting to eliminate the idea of the Holy and then wish to charge and prosecute people for not providing something that is holy? Do you not have one scintilla of how idiotic that is?

Yet another straw man. Where on earth have you got the notion that he wants to "eliminate the idea" of anything? 

If clerics want to call some services "holy" and say different words, do special little dances, tell themselves that Jesus will want them for a sunbeam etc and if some gay people buy that shit too and want to for themselves, then it's homophobic to deny it to them.

Try to grasp this rather than keep making a fool of yourself here. 

[Outrider]

Are they on their way out, then?

Haven't seen many on their way in. Must be hanging out with all the humble, mendicant Christians...

Vlad punches air, yodels the muster signal, bullocks, fatted calves are slaughtered in front of humanist vegetarians tied to posts. A great fire is lit, mongolian yak horn combos and Alabaman charismatic shofar blowers strike up a joyous tone and drunken cossacks burst into their routine.

So, no actual point, then?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Haven't seen many on their way in. Must be hanging out with all the humble, mendicant Christians...

Humility isn't their style vis Dawkins, Krauss, et al.

[Outrider]

Humility isn't their style vis Dawkins, Krauss, et al.

It's also not called out in the creed they don't have as one of the divine tenets...

O.

[Spud]

Nothwithstanding all that though you’re still asserting a homophobic god narrative in any case, which isn’t helping your case.       

Aren't you saying here that the Christian belief about God, ie that he made a woman as a helper for a man, and established that as a pattern for marriage, is homophobic? If so, the pattern is indeed discriminatory, but in no more a sense than believing that marriage was not created for children. This is where I take issue with your use of the word homophobia. If it's meaning includes discrimination, it's discrimination in an unjust sense. But there's also just discrimination (such as age limitation). So I think it's wrong to use the word homophobic with regard to Christian marriage excluding same-sex couples.

[ProfessorDavey]

Aren't you saying here that the Christian belief about God, ie that he made a woman as a helper for a man, and established that as a pattern for marriage, is homophobic?

Yup that is a homophobic belief and also on that is deeply misogynist.

If so, the pattern is indeed discriminatory, ...

Yup that is correct.

but in no more a sense than believing that marriage was not created for children.

What do you mean Spud - that children should be allowed or that marriage is for the purpose of having children. If the former, I'll address this later. But the latter, it is only in specific religious settings that having children is linked to marriage. In a legal sense marriage and having children are entirely separate - when you marry you do not have to indicate that you want children and the law has no interest in whether a couple coming to be married want children, do not want children, already have children, are able to have children, are not able to have children. These issues are completely irrelevant to legal marriage.

And let's not forget that marriage was originally instituted as a civic (not a religious) arrangement and largely about the control of property rights.

This is where I take issue with your use of the word homophobia. If it's meaning includes discrimination, it's discrimination in an unjust sense.

Yes it is discrimination and in my opinion unjustified discrimination, although currently the law does not make it unlawful. However we know the direction of travel and I would be surprised if these opt outs remain over the medium term, either because they are removed in law or because one by one denominations align themselves with the trailblazing Methodists.

But there's also just discrimination (such as age limitation).

Nope you are missing the point. Marriage must be consensual for it to be legal. The law across all sorts of areas considered children not to have the capacity to consent and uses a relatively blunt instrument of a age of consent to determine legally whether an individual can or cannot consent to a legal agreement. So the law isn't discriminating on the grounds of age, rather they are affirming the fundamental principle that marriage must be consensual. And this applies at later ages to - an adult is also not able to get married if they are considered to lack the capacity to consent, or the marriage doesn't not meet the other elements for consent, for example that it is given voluntarily.

So I think it's wrong to use the word homophobic with regard to Christian marriage excluding same-sex couples.

If by homophobic you mean discrimination against homosexual couples then it is clearly discrimination. You may feel it is justified discrimination, others think it unjustified - currently the law is on your side, but the law can and does change.

[Roses]

Aren't you saying here that the Christian belief about God, ie that he made a woman as a helper for a man, and established that as a pattern for marriage, is homophobic? If so, the pattern is indeed discriminatory, but in no more a sense than believing that marriage was not created for children. This is where I take issue with your use of the word homophobia. If it's meaning includes discrimination, it's discrimination in an unjust sense. But there's also just discrimination (such as age limitation). So I think it's wrong to use the word homophobic with regard to Christian marriage excluding same-sex couples.

YE GODS, what an unpleasant, homophobic, sexist piece of work you are. I hope no woman is unfortunate enough to be shacked up to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Aren't you saying here that the Christian belief about God, ie that he made a woman as a helper for a man, and established that as a pattern for marriage, is homophobic?

Not just homophobic, misogynistic too.

If so, the pattern is indeed discriminatory, but in no more a sense than believing that marriage was not created for children.

No, it’s homophobic because it’s offered to some but denied to others because of an innate characteristic – ie, sexual orientation. That’s what the word means. 

This is where I take issue with your use of the word homophobia. If it's meaning includes discrimination, it's discrimination in an unjust sense. But there's also just discrimination (such as age limitation). So I think it's wrong to use the word homophobic with regard to Christian marriage excluding same-sex couples.

You haven’t explained why you think discriminating against people on the ground of sexual orientation is “just”.

I’ll give you a clue: it isn’t.   

[Spud]

Oops, I appear to have worded my post very badly. I didn't mean anything about having children, but that marriage is not open to anyone who isn't old enough. This I would call fair or just discrimination. My question is, is discriminating on the basis of the sex of the participants in the context of marriage, just or unjust? If it is just, then it isn't homophobic (which carries the connotation of unfairness). If it's unjust, how is it different to not allowing children to get married or as another example, a minister of religion not allowing an 18 year-old to marry an 80 year-old?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Oops, I appear to have worded my post very badly. I didn't mean anything about having children, but that marriage is not open to anyone who isn't old enough. This I would call fair or just discrimination.

That’s because children are not deemed to have the critical faculties needed to make informed choices.

My question is, is discriminating on the basis of the sex of the participants in the context of marriage, just or unjust? If it is just, then it isn't homophobic (which carries the connotation of unfairness). If it's unjust, how is it different to not allowing children to get married…

It’s unjust, and it’s different for the reason I just explained. Adult gay people have the same critical faculties as adult straight people. 

…or as another example, a minister of religion not allowing an 18 year-old to marry an 80 year-old?

So far as I know that’s legal, and there are no special exemptions for religious institutions. 

[Spud]

Spud,

Not just homophobic, misogynistic too.

So is it misogynistic to believe that God created a man first?

[Aruntraveller]

So is it misogynistic to believe that God created a man first?

No. Just stupid.

[Spud]

And is it homophobic to believe God intended for men to marry women?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trent,

No. Just stupid.

You just beat me to it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

And is it homophobic to believe God intended for men to marry women?

If you mean only women, then that is a homophobic story yes.

[Spud]

Spud,

That’s because children are not deemed to have the critical faculties needed to make informed choices.

It’s unjust, and it’s different for the reason I just explained. Adult gay people have the same critical faculties as adult straight people.

So despite knowing what their body is designed for, they use it differently. Fair enough. I think it is reasonable and fair to discriminate on that basis, though, when it comes to holy matrimony. That has been the view for millennia.

[ProfessorDavey]

So is it misogynistic to believe that God created a man first?

And is it homophobic to believe God intended for men to marry women?

Stop hiding behind your purported god Spud - own your own views, take some responsibility.

Rather than tell us what you believe god thinks, tell us what you think Spud.

Do you believe that man was created first and that woman were created as a helper for a man?

Do you believe than men should only marry women?

Regardless of what you think god believes it is your choice whether or not to also believe these things. It is your views we are interested, not the views of an entity than many of us don't believe exists. It is the equivalent of a child saying that it was their imaginary friend that made them hit their sister.