Something out of place here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm pretty sure that, in your understanding of (*checks notes*) 'atheist wankfantasies'* that the churches wouldn't be state-controlled, they'd be shut down and turned into community centres and eclectic housing.

* shouldn't 'wankfantasies' be hyphenated? I mean a straw man argument is one thing, a straw man ramble another, but poorly grammaritisated straw men, that's just beyond the pale.

Oh, no.... anyway.

No, but marriage is.

O.

No, civil marriage is. Holy matrimony is in Gods hands and those of his vicars. It's the law you know.

[Aruntraveller]

No, if the facility is there then it cannot be said not to be. Basic logic although I fear this topic is highly emotionally laden.

Any issues with God, take it up with God in any emotion you feel.

As you appear to think that God is the only arbiter of emotions in this matter, best leave it up to him and not his minions on this earthly plane to make the decisions.

He does after all move in mysterious ways, a saying that when I was younger always used to put me in mind of Marcel Marceau.

Still, somewhere in an alternative gay universe there are straight men being told that they should marry other straight men to get around the all pervasive homosexuality of the place so that they can enter into Homo Matrimony.

Really you do post the most amazing bollocks sometimes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

* shouldn't 'wankfantasies' be hyphenated?

I don't know I'm not the one having them.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wouldn't deny them a marriage but were I a clergyman I would not feel at present able to provide them with holy matrimony.

But there are, no doubt, plenty of clergy who feel differently and would be perfectly comfortable to conduct a marriage for a same sex couple. But they are banned from doing so by the church. Do you agree that they should be banned from so doing?

[Roses]

As you appear to think that God is the only arbiter of emotions in this matter, best leave it up to him and not his minions on this earthly plane to make the decisions.

He does after all move in mysterious ways, a saying that when I was younger always used to put me in mind of Marcel Marceau.

Still, somewhere in an alternative gay universe there are straight men being told that they should marry other straight men to get around the all pervasive homosexuality of the place so that they can enter into Homo Matrimony.

Really you do post the most amazing bollocks sometimes.

Not sometimes but most of the time, imo.

[ProfessorDavey]

Holy matrimony is in Gods hands and those of his vicars.

Well we have no idea whether god exists, but vicars certainly do. Why should a vicar be banned from conducting a marriage for a same sex couple even if they are personally comfortable with this and presumably their feel god is too.

It's the law you know.

Except it isn't as the law isn't interested in holiness or god etc. It may be about some rules that an organisation sets out, but that isn't the law, nor can organisational rules over-ride the law of the land.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you appear to think that God is the only arbiter of emotions in this matter, best leave it up to him and not his minions on this earthly plane to make the decisions.

He does after all move in mysterious ways, a saying that when I was younger always used to put me in mind of Marcel Marceau.

Nothing wrong with Marcel.

Still, somewhere in an alternative gay universe there are straight men being told that they should marry other straight men to get around the all pervasive homosexuality of the place so that they can enter into Homo Matrimony.

I can see that you are not aware of some of my thoughts on this exact matter. This actually sounds quite wonderful and pretty stress free.......and that's the point, it's the sort of cozy situation that does not particularly require any divine oomph or guidance.
Two affable chaps, probably pipe smokers, not interested in the messier aspect of the certain unpleasantries. What's not to like?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well we have no idea whether god exists, but vicars certainly do. Why should a vicar be banned from conducting a marriage for a same sex couple even if they are personally comfortable with this and presumably their feel god is too.

It's not the churches policy the clergyman should have the balls to leave and go to a church that does.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VtH,

No, civil marriage is. Holy matrimony is in Gods hands and those of his vicars. It's the law you know.

As I've corrected you several times now about reifying faith claims for your premises I'm not sure i have the energy to do it again. Can we just agree that this basic mistake has been corrected and that the correction stands should you ever wish to address it?

Thanks.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not the churches policy the clergyman should have the balls to leave and go to a church that does.

Hmm - could that be construed as discrimination on the grounds of belief and constructive dismissal?

Perhaps the church should have the balls and respect (for both the clergy and gay couples) to allow those clergy who wish to conduct marriage for same sex couples to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I wouldn't deny them a marriage but were I a homophobic clergyman I would not feel at present able to provide them with holy matrimony.

FIFY

[Outrider]

No, civil marriage is.[/quote[

And, currently, church weddings qualify. If the church were drop its state function and just provide something between the participants and their idea of gods, I'd be fine with that, it would no longer be anything for me to give a crap about.

Holy matrimony is in Gods hands and those of his vicars. It's the law you know.

I do know. That's where the problem lies.

O.

[Outrider]

I don't know I'm not the one having them.

Is anyone? Or is this another facet of your alleged horde of antitheists?

Either way, so far as I can see it's your neologism, so it's on you to set the standard for it, right?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VtH,

As I've corrected you several times now about reifying faith claims for your premises I'm not sure i have the energy to do it again. Can we just agree that this basic mistake has been corrected and that the correction stands should you ever wish to address it?

Thanks.

Eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

VtH,

Eh?

A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. What you do is take various faith statements ("god" etc) and reify them for your premises to support your conclusion that god doesn't want gay people to marry each other ("If you don't like my church's homophobia take it up with god" etc).

And the problem with that is that if you rely on reified faith claims for your premises you cannot deny any other faith claims used to support any other conclusions. Thus: "racist B&B owners are fine because that's the way the leprechauns want it. If you don't like it take it up with the leprechauns" etc is the same argument as yours.

Can you see now why it doesn't work? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's your addition Hillside. Note your addition. Is the clergyman being homophobic or is he merely protecting the integrity of scripture and the language from nefarious new atheist piracy? We let the law decide that.....Oh...it has.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VtH,

A premise is a statement in an argument that provides reason or support for the conclusion. What you do is take various faith statements ("god" etc) and reify them for your premises to support your conclusion that god doesn't want gay people to marry each other ("If you don't like my church's homophobia take it up with god" etc).

And the problem with that is that if you rely on reified faith claims for your premises you cannot deny any other faith claims used to support any other conclusions. Thus: "racist B&B owners are fine because that's the way the leprechauns want it. If you don't like it take it up with the leprechauns" etc is the same argument as yours.

Can you see now why it doesn't work?

It's the reified bit I was ehing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VtL,

That's your addition Hillside. Note your addition. Is the clergyman being homophobic or is he merely protecting the integrity of scripture and the language from nefarious new atheist piracy? We let the law decide that.....Oh...it has.

That's called a false binary - he'd be both (I'm ignoring the mad conspiracy stuff here).

[bluehillside Retd.]

VtL,

It's the reified bit I was ehing.

You jump straight from faith claim status to fact status, then deploy these newly-minted "facts" as your premises. That's the reification part. 

[Outrider]

Is the clergyman being homophobic or is he merely protecting the integrity of scripture and the language from nefarious new atheist piracy?

Can it not be both? If the scripture he's defending is homophobic it kind of has to be both or neither, really.

We let the law decide that.....Oh...it has.

We know, that's a significant part of the problem.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can it not be both? If the scripture he's defending is homophobic it kind of has to be both or neither, really.

Take it up with God or Andrew Peirce or Rupert Everett or other gays who think marriage is a heterosexual anachronism or even gay Christians who take holy matrimony literally.

[Aruntraveller]

Given that there are heterosexual people who think marriage is an anachronism, dragging Andrew Pierce in as some kind of winning argument just sounds desperate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that there are heterosexual people who think marriage is an anachronism, dragging Andrew Pierce in as some kind of winning argument just sounds desperate.

Andrew Peirce and Rupert Everett account for two missing strings out of a thousand violins which began to play when gay marriage was legalised, one of which was mine.........although I thought the orchestra would then shut the fuck up. How wrong was I?

[Outrider]

Take it up with God or Andrew Peirce or Rupert Everett or other gays who think marriage is a heterosexual anachronism or even gay Christians who take holy matrimony literally.

If God ever answers my call, I'll let you know. As to Andrew Pierce or Rupert Everett, they can make their own arguments and I'll take it up with them.

You, however, were the one suggesting that the choice was between scripture or homophobia, you still haven't explained how YOU rationalise that there's a difference. Do you think it could be both?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If God ever answers my call, I'll let you know. As to Andrew Pierce or Rupert Everett, they can make their own arguments and I'll take it up with them.

You, however, were the one suggesting that the choice was between scripture or homophobia, you still haven't explained how YOU rationalise that there's a difference. Do you think it could be both?

O.

Well quite often people are aghast when I suggest they are antitheist and antireligionist and antichristian preferring instead to be just atheist tec despite regularly attacking religion and theists. They obviously see some distinction which allows them to say what they say and not identify with the phobia and -isms involved. I think someone who is just following scripture to the letter in the case of holy matrimony is far, far, far less likely to be motivated by homophobia than a person showing Dawkinsian disrespect for religious people is motivated by antitheism and antireligionism.

And also these antitheists, driven red eyed, by antitheism are the people who also fit the profile of word piracy and totalitarian linguistic revolution to meet their nefarious ends.