Something out of place here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 You seem to think that’s a good thing – I on the other hand think it’s contemptible.   

I don't believe I have said whether it is a good thing or not a good thing, but it is a God thing. I can see there is a difference between gender important marriage  and gender neutral marriage (which I believe must in many ways be an easier prospect) and the term holy matrimony is at least a delineator term.

In terms of contemptible ? what is it which is contemptible? My attitude which you have puffed into me breaking into a mogul feast with cossack dancing when I'm with like minded individuals? or God?

 If God , my advice as always is ....take it up with him.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't believe I have said whether it is a good thing or not a good thing, but it is a God thing.

But we don't know that gods - and regardless of whether god does or does not exist the decision to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality is taken by people as part of religious organisations. Those people have a choice and can make a decision not to discriminate. If they choose to discriminate then those people (including adherents such as yourself Vlad) 'own' those decisions and need to be held to account for them. Trying to pretend it is nothing to do with you, but just about god is cowardly and an untenable position.

[ProfessorDavey]

But you are making the ridiculous assertion here that Robinson or anyone in his position somehow leaves his homosexuality at the door of the church when he or she seriously undertakes Holy matrimony. That is arrant nonsense on your part.

No - my argument is very clear and understandable.

If Tom Robinson were heterosexual he could choose any potential female spouse and the church would be willing to offer a marriage service to that couple.

However regardless of whether Robinson is homosexual or bisexual he is treated less favourably by the church on the basis of his sexuality (the definition of discrimination).

So if he is homosexual and therefore choosing a potential male spouse, the church wont marry them.

If bisexual the church will only marry them if his choice of spouse is female, but not if male.

The issues is one of discrimination - now we know that because the church has an opt-out this isn't unlawful discrimination, but it is discrimination none the less.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But we don't know that gods - and regardless of whether god does or does not exist the decision to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality is taken by people as part of religious organisations.

Motivated entirely by the belief that any mouthing of the words may be but an empty gesture albeit a state construct to tick the boxes of a hegemonic view of equality.

[BeRational]

Motivated entirely by the belief that any mouthing of the words may be but an empty gesture albeit a state construct to tick the boxes of a hegemonic view of equality.

What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - my argument is very clear and understandable.

If Tom Robinson were heterosexual he could choose any potential female spouse and the church would be willing to offer a marriage service to that couple.

However regardless of whether Robinson is homosexual or bisexual he is treated less favourably by the church on the basis of his sexuality (the definition of discrimination).

So if he is homosexual and therefore choosing a potential male spouse, the church wont marry them.

If bisexual the church will only marry them if his choice of spouse is female, but not if male.

The issues is one of discrimination - now we know that because the church has an opt-out this isn't unlawful discrimination, but it is discrimination none the less.

Is discrimination always a bad thing.I would say it is an evolved thing which aids our survival and as with everything else is capable of perversion.

The fact that a Tom Robinson can receive holy matrimony effectively ends the argument of discrimination according to sexuality. I realise that must come as a blow to the swivel eyed......... and that is it.

Should the church be marrying every couple of different gender....I'm not sure about that I would hope there would be discernment in marriage classes to minimise the risk of a marriage that would likely fail due to propensity to adultery and other things.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is discrimination always a bad thing.

So you are accepting that your church is discriminatory, merely that in your view that is a good thing.

[ProfessorDavey]

The fact that a Tom Robinson can receive holy matrimony effectively ends the argument of discrimination according to sexuality.

No it doesn't. He is being treated less favourably by the church on the basis of his sexuality - that is discrimination.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Just like you can't get charged for wearing a loud shirt during the hours of darkness or smelling of foreign food. Your point is....?

None of which require special exemptions in law to permit certain institutions to act disgustingly with impunity.

My point was that your attempted point about clerics not being prosecuted for their homophopic activities was a crock - they can’t be prosecuted because the law protects them (but not other homophobes).

and who decided that the literal meaning phobia of homosexuality be scrapped altogether and replaced by a flexible meaning( see Stonewalls changing definitions )

It never was “the literal meaning” – something you’ve been corrected on several times now. I think your homophobia is awful – who decided that the literal meaning of that word (“full of awe”) should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a flexible meaning?

You basic ignorance of philology is showing here.   

I'm not sure the atheist's wankfantasy of hordes of churchgoers piling out of evensong to hunt down gays is consistent with an ever increasing secular society Hillside. You might have to explain what you have in mind here.

More lying doesn’t help you here. While it is true that religious people of all types have often used their faith beliefs to justify the most appalling behaviour, you have no argument against the homophobic thug who pleads, “but if the church gets special permission to be homophobic, what’s so bad about my homophobia then?”. What would you as a cleric say – “I know old son, you’re on the right lines (after all, god says so), but maybe just tone it down a bit next time? How about a light duffing up rather than putting the boot in for example?”. 

Really?

That makes two of us

I haven’t said otherwise. Does this mean you’ll stop lying about that then?

since that's your view it is neither here nor there.

Utter fuckwittery. Of course it’s here or there – the superstitions you attach to the type of service you’d offer to straight people but deny to gay people is the only part that’s neither here nor there.

Do try to keep up.     

I completely disagree

You can’t – try looking up the history of these things. It’s simple enough to do. 

Homophobia may have been around forever. That it is found in western non churched people, i.e. popular thuggery I would say IS due to fear of the different, fear of contracting homosexuality, fear of the myths surrounding it, and the taint roman aristocracy put on homosexuality which lingered for centuries and realisation of  ancient dogma by violent people. Opposition to the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony is very recent

True or not, it’s still irrelevant. You espouse a homophobic god story and the homophobic practices of the church that carries out the rules contained in that story. That makes you a homophobe. 

Not pretty is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

None of which require special exemptions in law to permit certain institutions to act disgustingly with impunity.

My point was that your attempted point about clerics not being prosecuted for their homophopic activities was a crock - they can’t be prosecuted because the law protects them (but not other homophobes).

It never was “the literal meaning” – something you’ve been corrected on several times now. I think your homophobia is awful – who decided that the literal meaning of that word (“full of awe”) should be scrapped altogether and replaced with a flexible meaning?

You basic ignorance of philology is showing here.   

More lying doesn’t help you here. While it is true that religious people of all types have often used their faith beliefs to justify the most appalling behaviour, you have no argument against the homophobic thug who pleads, “but if the church gets special permission to be homophobic, what’s so bad about my homophobia then?”. What would you as a cleric say – “I know old son, you’re on the right lines (after all, god says so), but maybe just tone it down a bit next time? How about a light duffing up rather than putting the boot in for example?”. 

Really?

I haven’t said otherwise. Does this mean you’ll stop lying about that then?

Utter fuckwittery. Of course it’s here or there – the superstitions you attach to the type of service you’d offer to straight people but deny to gay people is the only part that’s neither here nor there.

Do try to keep up.     

You can’t – try looking up the history of these things. It’s simple enough to do. 

True or not, it’s still irrelevant. You espouse a homophobic god story and the homophobic practices of the church that carries out the rules contained in that story. That makes you a homophobe. 

Not pretty is it?

Not the plain meaning? Presumably it is since the prime motivators of homophobia is thought to be fear of contracting homosexuality or fear of disruption of the social order. Where are you pulling your prime definition from, aside that great lexicological cornucopia, your rectum?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

I don't believe I have said whether it is a good thing or not a good thing, but it is a God thing. I can see there is a difference between gender important marriage  and gender neutral marriage (which I believe must in many ways be an easier prospect) and the term holy matrimony is at least a delineator term.

In terms of contemptible ? what is it which is contemptible? My attitude which you have puffed into me breaking into a mogul feast with cossack dancing when I'm with like minded individuals? or God?

 If God , my advice as always is ....take it up with him.

Your semi-literacy has always made it difficult for you to communicate, but I had assumed that you could read and, to some degree at least, comprehend. It seems not though. Would there be any point in correcting you again therefore on your reification screw up here?

If you want to try the, “OK my god is a homophobe but He knows best so you’d better take it up with Him” schtick yet again I could equally be the racist B&B owner who says, “but leprechauns know everything, they don’t like black people, therefore I’ll put a “No dogs, no Irish, No blacks” sign in my window and if you don’t like it you can take it up with the leprechauns”.

Does anything strike you as problematic with that argument?

Anything at all? 

I’ll set out for you your espousal of homophobia once again:

1. You think there’s something you call “god”.

2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.

3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, but that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.

4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.

In what possible way is that you not saying that your homophobic god story and your church’s homophobic practices are “a good thing”?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Not the plain meaning? Presumably it is since the prime motivators of homophobia is thought to be fear of contracting homosexuality or fear of disruption of the social order. Where are you pulling your prime definition from, aside that great lexicological cornucopia, your rectum?

It never was "the plain meaning", and it certainly isn't now. Your cocktail of ignorance and arrogance is becoming toxic now.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Leaving aside for now that being certain about anything is a very foolish position to take – how would eliminate even the possibility of being wrong? – you’re also being inconsistent here. Sometimes you claim to be certain, but at other times (usually when your attempts at justifying arguments have collapsed completely) instead you disingenuously try the, “I’m only posting this idea as a possibility” line. 

Perhaps if you picked either position and then stuck with it your reasoning would at least be consistently wrong rather than inconsistently so?

My certainty is not based upon the evidence I can portray with mere words.  To understand my certainty, you would have to enter my conscious mind and experience the indescribable nature of having a relationship with God.  In this I feel totally at one with St Paul:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My certainty is not based upon the evidence I can portray with mere words.  To understand my certainty, you would have to enter my conscious mind and experience the indescribable nature of having a relationship with God.  In this I feel totally at one with St Paul:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord

First, you've missed the point about the mistake of pitching your tent on "I'm certain".

Second, plenty of other people who have believed in countless other faith stories have been jut as certain of their beliefs as you are of yours. Unless you can "enter their conscious minds" too, how do you know that they're all wrong and you are right?

Third, what you're describing is just a conviction. Unless you can finally produce an argument to justify it, that's al it is though. Any fantasy will do for this purpose - all you need for certainty is to be convinced of it.

Even for you this is a poor effort Alan.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

It never was "the plain meaning", and it certainly isn't now. Your cocktail of ignorance and arrogance is becoming toxic now.

Toxic? what are you talking about. First you are saying that what I have to say is neither here nor there and a few posts later it's toxic. I'm afraid my view this time happens to be enshrined in law if both the law and my view were to change in neither case would that be down to you and your force of personality.

I have made that clear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VtH,

Toxic? what are you talking about. First you are saying that what I have to say is neither here nor there and a few posts later it's toxic.

What do you get from this kind of unremitting lying? Does it excite you in some way? What I actually said of course is that the magical properties you attach to one type of service are neither here nor there. What is here or there though is whether the service is offered on an equal or on a discriminatory basis.

This isn’t hard to grasp, or at least it shouldn’t be.

I'm afraid my view this times happens to be enshrined in law if both the law and my view were to change in neither case would that be down to you and your force of personality.

Yes I know the homophobic exceptions are enshrined in law, just as it used to be the case that racist B&B owners could put signs in their windows because their right to racist behaviour was enshrined in law too.

You seem to think that special permission in law for certain institutions to be homophobic is a good thing. I don’t.

I have made that clear.

You have: you’ve made clear that you're a homophobe, and pleased to be one too. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VtH,

What do you get from this kind of unremitting lying? Does it excite you in some way? What I actually said of course is that the magical properties you attach to one type of service are neither here nor there. What is here or there though is whether the service is offered on an equal or on a discriminatory basis.

This isn’t hard to grasp, or at least it shouldn’t be.

Yes I know the homophobic exceptions are enshrined in law, just as it used to be the case that racist B&B owners could put signs in their windows because their right to racist behaviour was enshrined in law too.

You seem to think that special permission in law for certain institutions to be homophobic is a good thing. I don’t.

You have: you’ve made clear that you're a homophobe, and pleased to be one too.

As far as I know they are only known as the homophobic exceptions in your circles Hillside. Perhaps you ought to consider why racism is presently against the law but provision of holy matrimony to those described in scripture as it happening between is not.
 This is because racism is universally seen as wrong even by the bad boys of Brexit, that is why they do it. Holy matrimony is a different thing any point of view on it may not be universal.
Explain why some like myself support Gay civil marriage but take a different line over holy matrimony without resorting to Christophobic caricature.

[Gordon]

As far as I know they are only known as the homophobic exceptions in your circles Hillside. Perhaps you ought to consider why racism is presently against the law but provision of holy matrimony to those described in scripture as it happening between is not.

That will be because the UK government shamefully allowed exceptions in the case of religious organisations.

This is because racism is universally seen as wrong even by the bad boys of Brexit, that is why they do it. Holy matrimony is a different thing any point of view on it may not be universal.

Views on almost anything may not be "universal" but that doesn't mean that nothing is legislated for, or against, unless absolutely everyone agrees on a position first: sometimes a consensus that 'x' should be allowed, or disallowed, overrides any objections - hence same-sex marriage is now legal in the UK despite opposition from some (but not all) sections of Christianity.

Explain why some like myself support Gay civil marriage but take a different line over holy matrimony without resorting to Christophobic caricature.

Perhaps you should be explaining yourself, Vlad, rather than asking others to do it for you. My guess is, when it comes to your precious Christianity, that you and certain other elements within Christianity are intrinsically homophobic based largely on fallacious arguments from authority and tradition (along with an added dash of reification).

By the way, I don't think you ever answered my question regarding why a same-sex couple who were committed and practicing Christians should be denied access to this 'holy matrimony'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That will be because the UK government shamefully allowed exceptions in the case of religious organisations.

Views on almost anything may not be "universal" but that doesn't mean that nothing is legislated for, or against, unless absolutely everyone agrees on a position first: sometimes a consensus that 'x' should be allowed, or disallowed, overrides any objections - hence same-sex marriage is now legal in the UK despite opposition from some (but not all) sections of Christianity.

Perhaps you should be explaining yourself, Vlad, rather than asking others to do it for you. My guess is, when it comes to your precious Christianity, that you and certain other elements within Christianity are intrinsically homophobic based largely on fallacious arguments from authority and tradition (along with an added dash of reification).

By the way, I don't think you ever answered my question regarding why a same-sex couple who were committed and practicing Christians should be denied access to this 'holy matrimony'.

What is intrinsically fallacious about saying God is personally involved in holy matrimony?
Before going on about proving God or that’s just your feeling, remember that feeling that this is bad like racism is in the same category. Just a feeling. You think putting God first is absolutely wrong, well welcome to the world of absolute morality although I am sure you’ll be back arguing otherwise.

Not all refusals to include are wrong.

Your task is to show that someone who holds the scriptural view of holy matrimony is morally bad using only reason and to show that somebody who says there is no real data so far to show that they must change the scriptural definition of holy matrimony, is the equivalent of a homophobic murderer. Something suggested by at least one chap on this forum.

Regarding same sex couples who are committed Christians and who are approaching holy matrimony.
I have said this before, they are in a position I may never be in. This makes them as I have said before better placed than I. They and their priest would I expect take this up with God if the priest belongs to a church where this is given to his disgression. If the couple proceed and find later that they have changed their view or ecclesiology I would imagine they would repent.
 As I have said they are better placed than I because of their situation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

As far as I know they are only known as the homophobic exceptions in your circles Hillside.

Then, as so often, “so far as you know” is woefully inadequate. The definition of homophobia includes discrimination of the ground of same-sex orientation. This type of discrimination is generally unlawful by virtue of the Equalities Act 2010. The same Act though also include special exemptions for religious institutions. Thus the church is protected by “homophobic exceptions” as you put it.

This shouldn’t be hard for you to grasp, it really shouldn’t. Even for you.   

Perhaps you ought to consider why racism is presently against the law but provision of holy matrimony to those described in scripture as it happening between is not.

Why? There are no special protections about racism for religious institutions because none of them (or at least none of the mainstream ones) espouse racist beliefs. If your church did say “there’s a god who thinks black people are inferior” though presumably they’d have special protections for their racism just as they do for their homophobia.

This is becauset racism is universally seen as wrong even by the bad boys of Brexit, that is why they do it. Holy matrimony is a different thing any point of view on it may not be universal.

No it isn’t. It’s because your church hasn’t ask for special exemptions to allow it to carry out racist practices.

Explain why some like myself support Gay civil marriage but take a different line over holy matrimony without resorting to Christophobic caricature.

I have done several times now. Here it is again. I suggest you actually read it this time, try at least to comprehend it, and actually respond to it rather than deflect into yet another logical dog’s breakfast:

1. You think there’s something you call “god”.

2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.

3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.

4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.

That makes you a homophobe.

Do you get it now? 
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

What is intrinsically fallacious about saying God is personally involved in holy matrimony?

1. You have no coherent definition of “God”.

2. You cannot demonstrate that this supposed god exists at all.

3. You cannot demonstrate that this supposed god thinks as you suppose it does.

Oh, and even if you found some way to deal with all that, still all you’d be left with is a homophobic god.

It’s not a good look is it?
 

Before going on about proving God or that’s just your feeling, remember that feeling that this is bad like racism is in the same category. Just a feeling. You think putting God first is absolutely wrong, well welcome to the world of absolute morality although I am sure you’ll be back arguing otherwise.

Wrong again. “God” is an objective claim of fact; moral questions are judgments and opinions about how to behave. You’ve made a basic category error here.

Not all refusals to include are wrong.

Gibberish.

Your task is to show that someone who holds the scriptural view of holy matrimony is morally bad using only reason and to show that somebody who says there is no real data so far to show that they must change the scriptural definition of holy matrimony, is the equivalent of a homophobic murderer. Something suggested by at least one chap on this forum.

Shifting of the burden of proof, straw man and false accusation. You’ve managed the trifecta of fallacies here.

Regarding same sex couples who are committed Christians and who are approaching holy matrimony.
I have said this before, they are in a position I may never be in. This makes them as I have said before better placed than I. They and their priest would I expect take this up with God if the priest belongs to a church where this is given to his disgression. If the couple proceed and find later that they have changed their view or ecclesiology I would imagine they would repent.
 As I have said they are better placed than I because of their situation.

Irrelevant.

Once again:

1. You think there’s something you call “god”.

2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.

3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.

4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.

That makes you a homophobe.

Do you get it now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Then, as so often, “so far as you know” is woefully inadequate. The definition of homophobia includes discrimination of the ground of same-sex orientation. This type of discrimination is generally unlawful by virtue of the Equalities Act 2010. The same Act though also include special exemptions for religious institutions. Thus the church is protected by “homophobic exceptions” as you put it.

Are they actually referred to as the homophobic exemptions. If not, then sadly for you the term is arsepull

 

Why? There are no special protections about racism for religious institutions because none of them (or at least none of the mainstream ones) espouse racist beliefs. If your church did say “there’s a god who thinks black people are inferior” though presumably they’d have special protections for their racism just as they do for their homophobia.

Atheist masochististic wankfantasy.

No it isn’t. It’s because your church hasn’t ask for special exemptions to allow it to carry out racist practices.

The idea of the church asking for it is atheist wanketc..........

1. You think there’s something you call “god”.

2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.

3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.

No it is open to gay people...who wish to marry people of the opposite sex.So you are incorrect, wrong, mistaken, in error, short of the mark, not the full ticket.

I think the thing is that if the church is told what to do by the state. It becomes a state church and those have an unhappy history.

I rather think that the government you have in mind would actually constitute an antitheist government. Mercifully in reality the world is not so dramatic.

[Gordon]

No it is open to gay people...who wish to marry people of the opposite sex.So you are incorrect, wrong, mistaken, in error, short of the mark, not the full ticket.

If this is the best you can do then give up, Vlad: it would be funny if it wasn't so unpleasantly pathetic.

[Roses]

Vlad just can't help himself. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Are they actually referred to as the homophobic exemptions. If not, then sadly for you the term is arsepull

By people who understand what these terms mean, yes. Moreover, I’ve explained to you several times now what these terms do mean so just collapsing into expletives doesn’t get you out of that hole.

Atheist masochististic wankfantasy.

So no argument then. Funny that.

What makes you think that the Government of the day would have denied racist exemptions had the church asked for them given that they so cravenly kowtowed on the homophobic exemptions they were asked for?
 

The idea of the church asking for it is atheist wanketc..........

You never have understood the meaning of the word “analogy” have you.

1. You think there’s something you call “god”.

2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.

3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people.

No it is open to gay people...who wish to marry people of the opposite sex.So you are incorrect, wrong, mistaken, in error, short of the mark, not the full ticket.

No, you are: for equality the service has to be open to all without special conditions attached. You may as well say that the ice cream van owner who won’t sell the 99s with flakes in to the Jewish kids (but will sell them the plain cornets instead) can’t be antisemitic because he will sell them the 99s, but only on condition that they pretend not to be Jewish.

Can you finally see where you’ve gone wrong again here?     

I think the thing is that if the church is told what to do by the state. It becomes a state church and those have an unhappy history.

It already is “the state” (ie, established) church and you’ve missed the point. What governments tell people to do via legislation is meant to everyone to comply with. The outlier position is when special exemptions are given to selected groups so the same rules don’t apply to them.

I happen to think that homophobic exemptions from the equalities legislation granted to special interest groups on the grounds of faith is a bad thing for society as a whole. You it seems do not. That presumably is because you’re comfortable with your homophobia.     

I rather think that the government you have in mind would actually constitute an antitheist government. Mercifully in reality the world is not so dramatic.

Then, as ever, you rather think wrongly. If you think it’s antitheist to refuse the church morally indefensible exemptions to equalities legislation that’s your privilege, but the cost is that you thereby paint yourself firmly into the homophobic corner too.

Shame on you.     

Oh, and just to remind you – here once again is why you’re a homophobe (and I’ve even amended it slightly to address your latest pathetic deflection):

1. You think there’s something you call “god”.

2. You also think this supposed god is morally inerrant.

3. You also think that this supposed god has an extra special version of marriage called “holy”, and that He doesn’t want it to be available to gay people who wish to marry each other.

4. As a (allegedly) Christian, you also think it’s your duty to “evangelise” for this shit.

That makes you a homophobe.

Do you get it now?