Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Anchorman on November 16, 2016, 10:45:45 AM
-
The government seems to think he is...... http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/I-m-just-an-evangelical-Christian-but-the-government-thinks-I-m-an-extremist?utm_source=Premier%20Christian%20Media&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7734918_Christianity%2011%2F11%2F16&utm_content=Welby&dm_i=16DQ,4LSAU,LBNHST,H4921,1 (I'm with Justin!)
-
I can't say I've ever thought of Justin Welby as an extremist. He always seems quite reasonable to me, I daresay there are some issues with which I would not be in agreement but that's the same for everyone. I wonder if he's said anything recently that has provoked this opinion?
-
I don't think Welby is an extremist either.
-
I suppose it depends on perspective, and one aspect of evangelism (and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is a desire to spread the word, so to speak, and not everyone wants to be considered as a potential target for this so-called 'good news'.
That they want to evangelise is fine of course, and like anyone else they should have the right to be heard, so if they want to stand on street corners proclaiming faith their (I saw an example recently in Glasgow city centre) that is fine by me: I can decide to listen or not. However, I can see an issue if these evangelical Christians also thought that they should have greater influence over public policy beyond that of any other group or cause, then that would concern me greatly - such as seeking to proselytise to my grandchildren when they are at school: there I draw the line, or having CofE clerics voting in the HoL.
I don't think for a second Welby is some kind of firebrand: he seems a thoughtful and intelligent chap, but if evangelising Christians want to have an impact on public policy over and above making representations on the same basis as any other pressure group in support of their cause, then they should stand for election on a theological manifesto.
Interesting that the chap who wrote the article Jim linked to in the OP says:
If the Government really want to get the new Counter Extremism legislation right, then they need to talk to evangelicals (and others) and listen to our concerns. And we evangelicals need to get ready to tell the Government what we believe. It would be tragic if the noble intention of protecting people from radicalisation and extremism became the means of undermining the vital principle of religious freedom and free speech.
I'm afraid that in my view those of his compatriots who recently opposed SSM on religious grounds, thereby seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, are to my mind religious extremists even if they don't think they are: fortunately their influence is declining.
-
I suppose it depends on perspective, and one aspect of evangelism (and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is a desire to spread the word, so to speak, and not everyone wants to be considered as a potential target for this so-called 'good news'.
That they want to evangelise is fine of course, and like anyone else they should have the right to be heard, so if they want to stand on street corners proclaiming faith their (I saw an example recently in Glasgow city centre) that is fine by me: I can decide to listen or not. However, I can see an issue if these evangelical Christians also thought that they should have greater influence over public policy beyond that of any other group or cause, then that would concern me greatly - such as seeking to proselytise to my grandchildren when they are at school: there I draw the line, or having CofE clerics voting in the HoL.
I don't think for a second Welby is some kind of firebrand: he seems a thoughtful and intelligent chap, but if evangelising Christians want to have an impact on public policy over and above making representations on the same basis as any other pressure group in support of their cause, then they should stand for election on a theological manifesto.
Interesting that the chap who wrote the article Jim linked to in the OP says:
I'm afraid that in my view those of his compatriots who recently opposed SSM on religious grounds, thereby seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, are to my mind religious extremists even if they don't think they are: fortunately their influence is declining.
I think you will find that Welby voted against SSM. Does that mean he is an extremist in your opinion, Gordon? I would have voted against SSM. Does that make me an extremist?
-
I read an article with him a little while ago and he said he was conflicted on the subject of SSM.
-
To be fair, he's not alone. Many Christians resolve it by continuing to accept that Christian marriage can only be between a man and a woman, whilst not opposing secular SSM.
-
I suppose it depends on perspective, and one aspect of evangelism (and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is a desire to spread the word, so to speak, and not everyone wants to be considered as a potential target for this so-called 'good news'.
That they want to evangelise is fine of course, and like anyone else they should have the right to be heard, so if they want to stand on street corners proclaiming faith their (I saw an example recently in Glasgow city centre) that is fine by me: I can decide to listen or not. However, I can see an issue if these evangelical Christians also thought that they should have greater influence over public policy beyond that of any other group or cause, then that would concern me greatly - such as seeking to proselytise to my grandchildren when they are at school: there I draw the line, or having CofE clerics voting in the HoL.
I don't think for a second Welby is some kind of firebrand: he seems a thoughtful and intelligent chap, but if evangelising Christians want to have an impact on public policy over and above making representations on the same basis as any other pressure group in support of their cause, then they should stand for election on a theological manifesto.
Interesting that the chap who wrote the article Jim linked to in the OP says:
I'm afraid that in my view those of his compatriots who recently opposed SSM on religious grounds, thereby seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, are to my mind religious extremists even if they don't think they are: fortunately their influence is declining.
A comprehensively Stalinist post.
-
I can't say I've ever thought of Justin Welby as an extremist. He always seems quite reasonable to me, I daresay there are some issues with which I would not be in agreement but that's the same for everyone. I wonder if he's said anything recently that has provoked this opinion?
Not sure why you're surprised, Gordon. The same occurs here, when one or more posters accuse those who stand on mainstream Christian principles of being extremist.
-
I think you will find that Welby voted against SSM. Does that mean he is an extremist in your opinion, Gordon? I would have voted against SSM. Does that make me an extremist?
I'd have to say I think so, although I'm sure you'll disagree.
I think the opposition to the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation on the basis of religious doctrine is extreme if the intention is to constrain society at large. That the CofE had to be legally protected so as to maintain their discriminatory stance is utterly shameful.
-
Not sure why you're surprised, Gordon. The same occurs here, when one or more posters accuse those who stand on mainstream Christian principles of being extremist.
Only when they advocate discrimination: thankfully their influence is declining, and thankfully too not all Christians advocate discrimination.
-
That they want to evangelise is fine of course, and like anyone else they should have the right to be heard, so if they want to stand on street corners proclaiming faith their (I saw an example recently in Glasgow city centre) that is fine by me: I can decide to listen or not. However, I can see an issue if these evangelical Christians also thought that they should have greater influence over public policy beyond that of any other group or cause, then that would concern me greatly - such as seeking to proselytise to my grandchildren when they are at school: there I draw the line, or having CofE clerics voting in the HoL.
And in what way does informing your grandchildren about one of a number of worldviews that exists within our society as part of a balanced curriculum that covers a whole host of such worldviews - proselytisation? I'm grateful that my daughters came into contact - within a faith school that fits the usual definition to a tee - with so many different ideas and subjects: many more than they would ever have come into contact within any secondary school here in the UK.
I don't think for a second Welby is some kind of firebrand: he seems a thoughtful and intelligent chap, but if evangelising Christians want to have an impact on public policy over and above making representations on the same basis as any other pressure group in support of their cause, then they should stand for election on a theological manifesto.
There are already those who do just this. Sadly, I don't find the theological stances they take match my position on many issues.
I'm afraid that in my view those of his compatriots who recently opposed SSM on religious grounds, thereby seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, are to my mind religious extremists even if they don't think they are: fortunately their influence is declining.
So, would you regard those who oppose it for scientific and other 'secular' grounds to be extremists?
-
Only when they advocate discrimination: thankfully their influence is declining, and thankfully too not all Christians advocate discrimination.
Oddly enough, Gordon, when I referred to 'mainstream Christian principles', I was thinking of ideas like 'all have sinned' and 'Jesus died for all of humanity'. I hadn't read your post about SSM at that point, but now wonder whether the term 'discrimination', as you have used it, can be applied to a belief that a certain forms of behaviour are bad for society.
After all, you and others have often suggested that you believe that society suffers as a result of religious belief; taking your definition of discrimination into account, you and they could be regarded as acting discriminatingly against those of faith.
-
And in what way does informing your grandchildren about one of a number of worldviews that exists within our society as part of a balanced curriculum that covers a whole host of such worldviews - proselytisation?
Leaving 'worldview' to one side, since I have no idea what this is in my case, my position is quite simple: if they want my kids (or grand-kids) to say prayers and sing hymns etc then I call that proselytising when it involves kids of primary school age: so we were having none of it.
I'm grateful that my daughters came into contact - within a faith school that fits the usual definition to a tee - with so many different ideas and subjects: many more than they would ever have come into contact within any secondary school here in the UK.
That would be your choice, and I fully respect that for some parents involving their children in religion is an expression of their love and care for their children: we just exercised the same love and care by not exposing them to religion as young children.
So, would you regard those who oppose it for scientific and other 'secular' grounds to be extremists?
Yes, since seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of personal sensitivities so as to maintain the discrimination of homosexual people is in my view an extremist position. I suspect you are flying a kite again when it comes to the 'scientific': so what are these grounds exactly?
-
I think you will find that Welby voted against SSM. Does that mean he is an extremist in your opinion, Gordon? I would have voted against SSM. Does that make me an extremist?
Not in my view, it doesn't.
Hi, Alan.
-
Oddly enough, Gordon, when I referred to 'mainstream Christian principles', I was thinking of ideas like 'all have sinned' and 'Jesus died for all of humanity'. I hadn't read your post about SSM at that point, but now wonder whether the term 'discrimination', as you have used it, can be applied to a belief that a certain forms of behaviour are bad for society.
Of course it can where these beliefs are used to justify discrimination based on what these 'Christian principles' are: you are free to reflect them in your personal opinions if you wish but they are not categorical imperatives that apply to society at large.
After all, you and others have often suggested that you believe that society suffers as a result of religious belief; taking your definition of discrimination into account, you and they could be regarded as acting discriminatingly against those of faith.
No I haven't and I have clearly said that I respect the entitlement of people to be religious: in a secular society this is as important as others being entitled to be free from religious influence beyond respecting the right of those who choose to be religious.
The problem is that some religious people can't keep it to themselves and would rather like the rest of society to reflect their religious views in relation to social policy - but when it comes to advocating the discrimination of homosexual people then I say no: keep your prejudices to yourselves.
-
Of course it can where these beliefs are used to justify discrimination based on what these 'Christian principles' are: you are free to reflect them in your personal opinions if you wish but they are not categorical imperatives that apply to society at large.
No I haven't and I have clearly said that I respect the entitlement of people to be religious: in a secular society this is as important as others being entitled to be free from religious influence beyond respecting the right of those who choose to be religious.
The problem is that some religious people can't keep it to themselves and would rather like the rest of society to reflect their religious views in relation to social policy - but when it comes to advocating the discrimination of homosexual people then I say no: keep your prejudices to yourselves.
problem there, Gordon, is that, yes, I accept that you respect the right of the individual to believe in the religion of their choice, yet emphasise that this should be a private matter.
The Christian faith stresses that discipleship is not an optional extra, and sharing the faith is a part of what it means to be Christian. In other words, those of us who claim Christ as Lord have no get-out clause: we must share our faith.
The manner in which some do so, however, can be both annoying and self defeating.
-
The government seems to think he is...... http://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/I-m-just-an-evangelical-Christian-but-the-government-thinks-I-m-an-extremist?utm_source=Premier%20Christian%20Media&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7734918_Christianity%2011%2F11%2F16&utm_content=Welby&dm_i=16DQ,4LSAU,LBNHST,H4921,1 (I'm with Justin!)
You see why it is necessary to follow Jesus accurately. Jesus teaches us to respect laws much higher than governmental laws and under normal circumstances there should be no conflict but we are hurtling into an age whereby certain politicians want to be in charge of what everybody is thinking and their years of propaganda have shown them that they can bully, ridicule, use media bombardment and hysteria to overpower free thought and good-order, unless, of course, people are following Jesus accurately because following Jesus is a counter-brainwashing technique, which is why people following Jesus, accurately, are living proof that brainwashing is a strong contributing factor in ill health.
-
problem there, Gordon, is that, yes, I accept that you respect the right of the individual to believe in the religion of their choice, yet emphasise that this should be a private matter.
The Christian faith stresses that discipleship is not an optional extra, and sharing the faith is a part of what it means to be Christian. In other words, those of us who claim Christ as Lord have no get-out clause: we must share our faith.
The manner in which some do so, however, can be both annoying and self defeating.
I respect the right of people to be religious, Jim, and would have it no other way.
The problem I have with the 'spreading the good news' approach is the implicit assumption that it is relevant to all whether we like it or not and where this could be seen as being intrusive, such as in primary schools, and also where it might be assumed that views based on religious doctrine, usually reflecting just one of several available doctrines, somehow have a default significance for society at large.
I accept that, for instance, many Christians are subtle and nuanced people but I'll confess to being utterly appalled at the stance of some elements within organised Christianity towards SSM, where the legal ring-fencing of the CofE to allow then to continue to discriminate against homosexual people was especially sickening.
-
I don't think Welby is an extremist either.
He seems a nice enough bloke for sure.
We all break the law from time to time, but what is the government supposed to do with people who in principle put their personal beliefs above the law of the land ? The content his particular beliefs might not be so subversive, but there is a principle that no one should be above the law.
-
I respect the right of people to be religious, Jim, and would have it no other way.
The problem I have with the 'spreading the good news' approach is the implicit assumption that it is relevant to all whether we like it or not and where this could be seen as being intrusive such as in primary schools, and also where it might be assumed that views based on religious doctrine, usually reflecting just one of several available doctrines, somehow have a default significance for society at large.
I accept that, for instance, many Christians are subtle and nuanced people but I'll confessed to being utterly appalled at the stance of some elements within organised Christianity towards SSM, where the legal ring-fencing of the CofE to allow then to continue to discriminate against homosexual people was especially sickening.
Can't speak for CofE, but as for the Kirk, our involvement is minimal as far as education at primary level goes.
In my own local authority, it is at the whim of the head teacher (not a very good idea, as far as I'm concerned - there is no uniformity)
Certainly there is no indoctrination, nor should there be. There are four occasions when the minister (or other Christian rep) conducts a form of simple service - and attendance is not compulsory: the church - rather than the education authority, issues a form through the school secretary for every parent to give consent for attendance of the child. In other words, the default is non attendance; only a positive tick in the box allows a child to attend.
There's also a visit to the local places of worship by various classes - all religious places are asked to allow this: the Jehovah Witness and spiritualists were the only ones to decline.
So the kids had a look round the Kirk, RC church, Bretheren/Christian Fellowship, and were bussed to a mosque and Glasgow Synagogue.
-
Can't speak for CofE, but as for the Kirk, our involvement is minimal as far as education at primary level goes.
In my own local authority, it is at the whim of the head teacher (not a very good idea, as far as I'm concerned - there is no uniformity)
Certainly there is no indoctrination, nor should there be. There are four occasions when the minister (or other Christian rep) conducts a form of simple service - and attendance is not compulsory: the church - rather than the education authority, issues a form through the school secretary for every parent to give consent for attendance of the child. In other words, the default is non attendance; only a positive tick in the box allows a child to attend.
That sounds similar to arrangements here, Jim, which is why it wasn't ever a major issue since, presumably, the schools plan for this being an option.
The schools our kids/grand-kids went/go to (the same schools in fact) are non-denominational so I don't know how this differs in denominational schools, such as designated RC schools, or faith schools (not sure if we have many of these in Scotland) - but I'd assume that in these cases the parents consent to a religious element as being part of deal, so to speak.
There's also a visit to the local places of worship by various classes - all religious places are asked to allow this: the Jehovah Witness and spiritualists were the only ones to decline. So the kids had a look round the Kirk, RC church, Bretheren/Christian Fellowship, and were bussed to a mosque and Glasgow Synagogue.
Aside from services at the local church, which were covered by the permission form, I can't recall there being planned visits to Mosques etc.
-
The kids love the Kirk visits - 'cos our kirk sits in the middle of a historic graveyard, and it might seem 'spooky'. When they come inside, usually the minister - dressed in civvies - (possibly leathers, because our minister's an aging biker) and myself will do the tour. It's an access all areas - pupils are sometimes encouraged to make paper planes and throw them from the pulpit.....they seem to like the visits, for some reason........ Obviously we encourage such visits, as does the local school. Opportunities for Christian witness exist outside the educational system, and whether or not kids attend is purely up to the parents. That's the way it should be, IMHO. Back to SSM. The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith.
-
The kids love the Kirk visits - 'cos our kirk sits in the middle of a historic graveyard, and it might seem 'spooky'. When they come inside, usually the minister - dressed in civvies - (possibly leathers, because our minister's an aging biker) and myself will do the tour.
He's in good company, since I too am an ageing biker.
The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith.
I don't have a problem with that, Jim, since people are free to disapprove or dislike stuff, be it music, politics or social matters. My problem is with the notion that social policy should reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives.
That some Christians consider that SSM isn't 'scriptural' may be their opinion but this isn't a compelling argument for non-Christians, bearing in mind that society has changed considerably since biblical times, and since not all of us see the Bible as being authoritative or binding and where the consequence of ensuring marriage legislation accorded with 'scripture' would maintain discrimination: thankfully our legislators rejected the scriptural view of marriage, and of course the legal status of marriage isn't determined by organised Christianity or 'scripture'.
-
I'd have to say I think so, although I'm sure you'll disagree.
I think the opposition to the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation on the basis of religious doctrine is extreme if the intention is to constrain society at large. That the CofE had to be legally protected so as to maintain their discriminatory stance is utterly shameful.
A couple of questions:
1) I would say that sometimes discrimination is justified, e.g. not allowing a Christian to be in charge of the British Humanist Association or the Muslim Council of Britain. Would you agree?
2) When does someone fall into the category "extremist"? Do you have some objective criteria that can be used?
-
He seems a nice enough bloke for sure.
We all break the law from time to time, but what is the government supposed to do with people who in principle put their personal beliefs above the law of the land ? The content his particular beliefs might not be so subversive, but there is a principle that no one should be above the law.
It is difficult, isn't it. Should the suffragettes have broken the law? Should anyone have had homosexual sex prior to it being decriminalised in the 1960s? Were the anti-Nazi plotters wrong to try to assassinate Hitler during the Second World War?
It is difficult to know where to draw the line.
-
It is difficult, isn't it. Should the suffragettes have broken the law? Should anyone have had homosexual sex prior to it being decriminalised in the 1960s? Were the anti-Nazi plotters wrong to try to assassinate Hitler during the Second World War?
It is difficult to know where to draw the line.
Yes I agree. There is no such thing as a perfect law and maybe in a sense it is platitudinous to say that no one should be above the law. Should conscientious objectors have been imprisoned ? When you boil this down, it comes down to the fact that there is no such thing as objective morality. Oh, no, what have I done :-\
-
A couple of questions:
1) I would say that sometimes discrimination is justified, e.g. not allowing a Christian to be in charge of the British Humanist Association or the Muslim Council of Britain. Would you agree?
I'd tend to see that as being not suitably qualified for the role in relation to what the role requires. So, rhetorically speaking, would I be discriminated against if I was rejected in my application to be the head honcho of the body that administers English cricket: I'd say not since I'm spectacularly unqualified for this role.
2) When does someone fall into the category "extremist"? Do you have some objective criteria that can be used?
No, since I think it is a subjective view that is relative to the issue under consideration although it may be the case that some scenarios are considered to be more 'extreme' than others to the extent of being legislated against. What we'd class as 'terrorism' is undoubtedly extreme when it comes to events such as those in France and elsewhere in recent times, although no doubt there may be some who see such acts differently.
In relation to SSM in the UK, on the basis of someone saying that they'd legislate to limit the legal definition of marriage so as to accord with what Hope referred to as 'Christian principles', by using 'scripture' as an authority to define marriage, then I would see that as an extremist position in a secular democracy: so not in my name thank you, since I see nothing in 'scripture' that is authoritative or binding on me or society at large.
Thankfully our UK legislators (exc. NI) took a similar view and over-ruled religious objections by legislating to remove discrimination that prevented homosexual people from marrying whomever they wanted to (provided the other person was legally free to marry).
-
I'd tend to see that as being not suitably qualified for the role in relation to what the role requires. So, rhetorically speaking, would I be discriminated against if I was rejected in my application to be the head honcho of the body that administers English cricket: I'd say not since I'm spectacularly unqualified for this role.
I'm interested that you think being refused a role one is not suitably qualified for is not discrimination, but that refusing marriage to people of the same sex is discrimination. I know the latter could be said to be qualified in that they are able to have a 'loving' relationship. But does this justify applying the name, marriage, which is commonly given to something that is unique to opposite sex couples, ie a loving, life-long relationship capable of producing and rearing offspring - does it justify applying that name to a loving, life-long relationship between two people of the opposite sex for whom that is not, by design, possible? Does that not deprive opposite-sex marriage of any uniqueness? Surely it does, and will ultimately lead to a confused society.
-
I'm interested that you think being refused a role one is not suitably qualified for is not discrimination, but that refusing marriage to people of the same sex is discrimination.
These are two different issues, which is why I pointed out that suitability for an organisational role (as mentioned by Alan) is a matter of competence whereas marriage is a legal entitlement: denying this legal entitlement to certain people based on their sexuality is discrimination.
I know the latter could be said to be qualified in that they are able to have a 'loving' relationship. But does this justify applying the name (marriage) given to something that is unique to opposite sex couples, ie a loving, life-long relationship capable of producing and rearing offspring, to a loving, life-long relationship between two people of the opposite sex for whom that is not, by design, possible?
Yes, once you ditch your prejudices and the notion that marriage should be exactly how you'd prefer it to be even where you try to add the additional rider of children: not everyone wants children you know, irrespective of their sexuality. Of course it is possible, since no doubt there are many examples of happy same-sex married couples, just as no doubt their are unhappy ones too - just like mixed-sex marriage.
Does that not deprive opposite-sex marriage of any uniqueness? Surely it does, and will ultimately lead to a confused society.
No, your prejudices are affecting your reasoning: having been married for 43 years to the wonderful Mrs G, with 3 children and 4 grand-children (so far) I don't feel my marriage is in any sense devalued by other marriages (be they gay, straight, childless or have bred like rabbits).
-
I read an article with him a little while ago and he said he was conflicted on the subject of SSM.
He might have voted against because voting for would increase the stresses on the Anglican Church.
-
Not sure why you're surprised, Gordon. The same occurs here, when one or more posters accuse those who stand on mainstream Christian principles of being extremist.
Who here has accused a mainstream Christian of being extremist.
-
Who here has accused a mainstream Christian of being extremist.
OK, lets start with Floo; then you can mention the likes of Gordon and anyone who regards those who oppose things such as SSM as extremists. In fact, Gordon has described me as being such an extremist on this very thread. Re-read his post #9 where he not only describes Justin Welby as an extremist for voting against SSM, but - by extension - anyone else who holds that view.
-
OK, lets start with Floo; then you can mention the likes of Gordon and anyone who regards those who oppose things such as SSM as extremists. In fact, Gordon has described me as being such an extremist on this very thread. Re-read his post #9 where he not only describes Justin Welby as an extremist for voting against SSM, but - by extension - anyone else who holds that view.
People who threaten others with burning in hell if they don't get 'saved' are extremists, imo.
-
Leaving 'worldview' to one side, since I have no idea what this is in my case, my position is quite simple: if they want my kids (or grand-kids) to say prayers and sing hymns etc then I call that proselytising when it involves kids of primary school age: so we were having none of it.
You could equally be accused of proselytising by such a refusal to allow them to learn about the full range of human experience, Gordon. OK, it would probably be more proselytisation by omission rather than commission, but its no better than what you accuse others of.
That would be your choice, and I fully respect that for some parents involving their children in religion is an expression of their love and care for their children: we just exercised the same love and care by not exposing them to religion as young children.
Does deciding to block a child from learning about all aspects of human life show love and care? Surely, by doing so, one is denying that child their right to choose - after all, as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions, children brought up in the way you claim to have brought yours up either make the move into the radical extremes of faith or don't move that way at all.
Yes, since seeking to maintain discrimination on the basis of personal sensitivities so as to maintain the discrimination of homosexual people is in my view an extremist position. I suspect you are flying a kite again when it comes to the 'scientific': so what are these grounds exactly?
I've tried to find a site which covers as many such arguments as I can. I was pointed towards this by a gay friend a few months back - http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage. Whilst I don't agree with some of the arguments listed, its existence shows that there are arguments against the idea from non-religious sources.
-
People who threaten others with burning in hell if they don't get 'saved' are extremists, imo.
If someone comes up to you, Floo, and 'threatens' you with death if you insist on walking across a motorway every day, do you ignore them?
-
OK, lets start with Floo; then you can mention the likes of Gordon and anyone who regards those who oppose things such as SSM as extremists. In fact, Gordon has described me as being such an extremist on this very thread. Re-read his post #9 where he not only describes Justin Welby as an extremist for voting against SSM, but - by extension - anyone else who holds that view.
Indeed I did, and I make no apologies for doing so, and for context you should my other posts in this thread (such as #27).
-
If someone comes up to you, Floo, and 'threatens' you with death if you insist on walking across a motorway every day, do you ignore them?
Of course not because walking on the motorway is provably dangerous. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the hell-fire myth!
-
You could equally be accused of proselytising by such a refusal to allow them to learn about the full range of human experience, Gordon. OK, it would probably be more proselytisation by omission rather than commission, but its no better than what you accuse others of.
How so? You also seem to be suggesting that life without religious experience is incomplete, which may well be your opinion but it isn't mine - I didn't want them exposed to Mormonism either, or any of the various political philosophies at a young age, so why would I make an exception for Christianity?
Does deciding to block a child from learning about all aspects of human life show love and care? Surely, by doing so, one is denying that child their right to choose - after all, as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions, children brought up in the way you claim to have brought yours up either make the move into the radical extremes of faith or don't move that way at all.
How can a child of primary school age have sufficient critical thinking skill to 'choose' when it comes to abstract ideas? Far better surely to protect them until they have developed sufficiently given the risks that they will believe what they are told at an impressionable age: after all, surely teachers don't want to mislead young children!
I've tried to find a site which covers as many such arguments as I can. I was pointed towards this by a gay friend a few months back - http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage. Whilst I don't agree with some of the arguments listed, its existence shows that there are arguments against the idea from non-religious sources.
There are arguments for and against almost everything, and that there are such arguments doesn't mean they are all valid. I'll have a look at this site later (baby-sitting this morning).
-
If someone comes up to you, Floo, and 'threatens' you with death if you insist on walking across a motorway every day, do you ignore them?
Interesting choice of analogy: and the point you are making via this analogy is what, exactly?
-
Interesting choice of analogy: and the point you are making via this analogy is what, exactly?
In the analogy I have used, I am warning of a consequence. This is exactly what Jesus and the Biblical writers do - they warn that certain actions and behaviours will send a person in one direction; and other actions and behaviours will send them in another.
To pick up on a comment made elsewhere on this board, I suppose that Heaven and Hell could be the same place - depending on your outlook on life whilst alive. What is more responsible, to let people wander blindly into their after life, or to warn them that if they follow a certain route they will suffer sadness in that after life?
-
I've tried to find a site which covers as many such arguments as I can. I was pointed towards this by a gay friend a few months back - http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage. Whilst I don't agree with some of the arguments listed, its existence shows that there are arguments against the idea from non-religious sources.
Have had a look at this, and I'm surprised that having read it yourself you posted it at all. I consists of posts in a Forum where there are 10 current replies in support of the motion 'Are there any good secular arguments against gay marriage?' and they contain both simplistic nonsense and a goodly number of fallacies. Let's look at some, with some extracts.
The quotes below are all from: http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-there-any-good-secular-arguments-against-gay-marriage.
a. This one misses the point in understanding that the aim of SSM is to provide equal access to marriage before descending into hyperbole plus a splash of ad populum.
By passing laws which prevent discrimination against a particular class of people. We set their rights above the majority and it destroys our freedom of speech, our freedom of conscience, and our right to make a living.
b. Here we have an argument from ignorance.
Perhaps the most compelling of arguments is the fact that gay marriage isn't a way to reproduce. We've been taught in school how evolution requires a survival of the fittest. If homosexuals can't reproduce, then it reduces the rate of growth of humans. Obviously, it wouldn't cause a great deal of distress in the beginning, but over the years, there will be an impact in the population.
That even goes deeper into the 'nature or nurture' argument. If homosexuality really is against the theory of evolution, then one has to ask: How could there be a homosexual gene in one if they can't possibly reproduce?
c. Then there is the slippery slope fallacy - twice in fact in separate posts.
Those who are in "same sex" relationships are not looking to be married, they want to be in a same sex union. (since marriage is only between a man and woman) If we then allow 2 men to be married, should we let 3 men be married or 2 sets of couples that swing, be married.... Legally, where could we draw the limit.
No culture in history until modern times has called a committed sexual relationship between two men or two women 'marriage.' What is quickly passing for our western requirement for marriage is that two people be 'in love.' If this is all that is required, eventually there can't logically be reasons to refuse any arrangement of loving persons, and marriage will assume a wide variety of structures. It seems that the end result is that marriage becomes undefinable and extinct as a social institution. Many believe that this is the ultimate goal.
d. This abominable example is an argument from authority, amongst its other horrors.
Why are homosexuals afraid to "come out"? It is simply because deep down they realize that it is not natural and it is not right to be gay. Yes, the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. It also says that it is a sin and it is an abomination. Take religion out of the equation and all you have is two human being that are incapable of reproducing. You still need a heterosexual couple to reproduce in order to have children. Christians do not discriminate against any human being. God loves his creation because we are created in God's image. But He abhors the sin.
If you are citing the likes of these views as being valid secular arguments against SSM I'd suggest you think again: apart from some not being secular at all, they contain several obvious fallacies and spurious points that would be funny if they weren't so deeply unpleasant.
-
In the analogy I have used, I am warning of a consequence. This is exactly what Jesus and the Biblical writers do - they warn that certain actions and behaviours will send a person in one direction; and other actions and behaviours will send them in another.
Super - but hardly very profound: I can't see that we need divine agency to work out that some things are dangerous and could have consequences that would be best avoided, such as choosing to walk on motorways.
To pick up on a comment made elsewhere on this board, I suppose that Heaven and Hell could be the same place - depending on your outlook on life whilst alive.
My outlook suggests to me that they are adjacent to Narnia, on the left, which can be found by following the signs to Mordor: be careful on the roads mind, since they can be dangerous places to walk!
What is more responsible, to let people wander blindly into their after life, or to warn them that if they follow a certain route they will suffer sadness in that after life?
What would be more responsible would be to first establish this 'after life' as being a certain follow-on from this life before worrying people about it.
-
In the analogy I have used, I am warning of a consequence. This is exactly what Jesus and the Biblical writers do - they warn that certain actions and behaviours will send a person in one direction; and other actions and behaviours will send them in another.
To pick up on a comment made elsewhere on this board, I suppose that Heaven and Hell could be the same place - depending on your outlook on life whilst alive. What is more responsible, to let people wander blindly into their after life, or to warn them that if they follow a certain route they will suffer sadness in that after life?
arrogance surpassing the ridiculous , I fear.
-
These are two different issues, which is why I pointed out that suitability for an organisational role (as mentioned by Alan) is a matter of competence whereas marriage is a legal entitlement:
Within certain boundaries, yes.
denying this legal entitlement to certain people based on their sexuality is discrimination.
Not if they are outside the boundaries.
Yes, once you ditch your prejudices
It's nothing to do with prejudice, at least in my post there was no prejudice that I am aware of. It is a matter of how the boundaries for entitlement are drawn. They have been widened to include divorcees, and this at first seems to justify including people of the same sex. If however we look at this in terms of the family unit: with divorcees at least there is a family unit, albeit leaving behind a broken one.
and the notion that marriage should be exactly how you'd prefer it to be even where you try to add the additional rider of children: not everyone wants children you know,
But a married man and woman form a family unit, whether or not they have children. Two men or two women do not form this unit. Those who do not marry an opposite sex partner remain in their parents' family unit.
irrespective of their sexuality. Of course it is possible, since no doubt there are many examples of happy same-sex married couples, just as no doubt their are unhappy ones too - just like mixed-sex marriage.
No, your prejudices are affecting your reasoning: having been married for 43 years to the wonderful Mrs G, with 3 children and 4 grand-children (so far) I don't feel my marriage is in any sense devalued by other marriages (be they gay, straight, childless or have bred like rabbits).
I said nothing about devaluing marriage - how can something that is not marriage devalue it? Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.
-
I said nothing about devaluing marriage - how can something that is not marriage devalue it? Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.
Nicely put, Spud. It's pity that some people can't or don't appreciate this kind of thing. It's also sad they feel that they can discriminate against people in the way they do.
-
arrogance surpassing the ridiculous , I fear.
If you believe that warning people of the consequences of their actions is arrogance, Walter, I can't see many doctors agreeing with you.
-
Within certain boundaries, yes.
Not if they are outside the boundaries.
Whose boundaries are these, and to what extent are these authoritative and binding on society at large?
It's nothing to do with prejudice, at least in my post there was no prejudice that I am aware of. It is a matter of how the boundaries for entitlement are drawn.
Same question: whose boundaries?
They have been widened to include divorcees, and this at first seems to justify including people of the same sex. If however we look at this in terms of the family unit: with divorcees at least there is a family unit, albeit leaving behind a broken one. But a married man and woman form a family unit, whether or not they have children.
Whose definition of 'family unit' are you subscribing to?
Two men or two women do not form this unit. Those who do not marry an opposite sex partner remain in their parents' family unit.
Says who?
I said nothing about devaluing marriage - how can something that is not marriage devalue it? Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.
You seem to be saying that the marriages of those who don't adhere to your definition 'is not marriage': therefore you are devaluing these marriages by seeking to, in effect, deny these marriages are valid - it seems that the legislature don't agree with you, and it is they that set the boundaries that matter.
-
Nicely put, Spud. It's pity that some people can't or don't appreciate this kind of thing. It's also sad they feel that they can discriminate against people in the way they do.
No - badly put Spud, as I've noted in #47.
-
If you believe that warning people of the consequences of their actions is arrogance, Walter, I can't see many doctors agreeing with you.
I think that very simplistic warnings, such as your 'don't walk on motorways' effort earlier, is stating the bleeding obvious - which I think was what Walter was picking up on.
Most people can assess everyday risks, like traffic, without divine inspiration - which is why your motorway analogy linking to 'what Jesus and the Biblical writers do - they warn that certain actions and behaviours will send a person in one direction; and other actions and behaviours will send them in another.' was indeed ridiculous, as Walter noted.
-
Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.
Historically that has been true, but nothing stays the same. Historically, slavery was acceptable, now it is not. Things change and that includes our cultural concepts like marriage, now broadened to more truly reflect the diversity inherent in our population.
-
Within certain boundaries, yes.Not if they are outside the boundaries. It's nothing to do with prejudice, at least in my post there was no prejudice that I am aware of. It is a matter of how the boundaries for entitlement are drawn. They have been widened to include divorcees, and this at first seems to justify including people of the same sex. If however we look at this in terms of the family unit: with divorcees at least there is a family unit, albeit leaving behind a broken one. But a married man and woman form a family unit, whether or not they have children. Two men or two women do not form this unit. Those who do not marry an opposite sex partner remain in their parents' family unit.I said nothing about devaluing marriage - how can something that is not marriage devalue it? Marriage is the unique contract between a man and woman by which they form a lifelong family unit, whether they breed like rabbits or not at all. And because it is unique, it has its own name.
We live in the 21st century not the dark ages, thank goodness, marriage is a contract between two people of the opposite sex, or the same sex, GET OVER IT! Anyone wanting to stop same sex couples from marrying is an extremist! >:(
-
We live in the 21st century not the dark ages, thank goodness, marriage is a contract between two people of the opposite sex, or the same sex, GET OVER IT! Anyone wanting to stop same sex couples from marrying is an extremist! >:(
well said Floo, trouble is they don't even realise it.
-
There is a current quip from Whoopi Goldberg doing the rounds:
If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married.
Simples. <squeak>
-
Whose boundaries are these, and to what extent are these authoritative and binding on society at large?
Same question: whose boundaries?
Whose definition of 'family unit' are you subscribing to?
Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.
Says who?
You seem to be saying that the marriages of those who don't adhere to your definition 'is not marriage': therefore you are devaluing these marriages by seeking to, in effect, deny these marriages are valid - it seems that the legislature don't agree with you, and it is they that set the boundaries that matter.
Ok, lets look at it from the perspective of a group of people in a workplace. If they get on so well that they say, 'we are one big family' do they mean they are literally one family, in that they all have the same parents? No, such a 'family' is a copy of the actual family, which means a man and a woman and any biological children they have. So two gay people can not be a literal family. There is a distinction between a biological family and a non-biological one.
Fine, so why not include gay couples in the broad definition of family? Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog. This is how the boundary is set. That's why it would be absurd to allow humans to marry animals, or adults to marry children.
-
Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.
Why can it not be broadened to include a same sex couple - they can and do adopt children. So what is to stop you broadening the definition.
(PS I note the implied comparison with bestiality. What a nice mind you have.)
Presumably under your ludicrously prescriptive set up couples who are unable to procreate would also be excluded. Before you start arguing the point I refer you to your following statement:
Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog. This is how the boundary is set.
-
Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.
Ok, lets look at it from the perspective of a group of people in a workplace. If they get on so well that they say, 'we are one big family' do they mean they are literally one family, in that they all have the same parents? No, such a 'family' is a copy of the actual family, which means a man and a woman and any biological children they have. So two gay people can not be a literal family. There is a distinction between a biological family and a non-biological one.
Fine, so why not include gay couples in the broad definition of family? Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog. This is how the boundary is set. That's why it would be absurd to allow humans to marry animals, or adults to marry children.
A lot of hetero couples don't want, or can't have, kids, so aren't they biological families? Trying to make homosexuality out to be unnatural is extremist behaviour! >:(
-
Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.
Ok, lets look at it from the perspective of a group of people in a workplace. If they get on so well that they say, 'we are one big family' do they mean they are literally one family, in that they all have the same parents? No, such a 'family' is a copy of the actual family, which means a man and a woman and any biological children they have. So two gay people can not be a literal family. There is a distinction between a biological family and a non-biological one.
Fine, so why not include gay couples in the broad definition of family? Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog. This is how the boundary is set. That's why it would be absurd to allow humans to marry animals, or adults to marry children.
Leaving aside yet another comparison of my gay friends to beastialists and paedophiles, are you saying that if someone is past puberty they can marry, even if they were say 10 years old?
-
Generally, a family unit is a man and a woman and any children they have. This can be broadened to include adopted children or a step-parent, but the boundary clearly excludes a man and a dog, for example.
Again: whose boundaries are these and in what ways are they binding?
Ok, lets look at it from the perspective of a group of people in a workplace.
Why should we? The situations are wholly different in terms of the nature of the relationships involved.
If they get on so well that they say, 'we are one big family' do they mean they are literally one family, in that they all have the same parents? No, such a 'family' is a copy of the actual family, which means a man and a woman and any biological children they have.
No it doesn't: all you are doing here is highlighting that colloquial English allows words to have different contexts - 'family' is but one example, and the obvious other one in this context is 'gay'.
So two gay people can not be a literal family.
Says who?
There is a distinction between a biological family and a non-biological one.
There may be a distinction but in terms of the immediate ancestry of those involved but then spouses are rarely closely related in biological terms. So, for example, are you saying that when Mrs G and I got together and married we weren't a 'family' for the 5 years before our first child arrived?
Fine, so why not include gay couples in the broad definition of family?
Why not indeed: I'm happy to do so.
Because they do not have the potential to ever be a biological family, just like a man and a dog.
Yikes - this reads like you are equating same sex or mixed sex relationships where children aren't an option with 'one man and his dog'. I'm sure this isn't your intention but it does suggest your thinking on this issue is all at sea. In addition, on whose authority is it that marriage should involve the potential to be a 'biological family' predicated?
This is how the boundary is set.
Again, by whom?
That's why it would be absurd to allow humans to marry animals, or adults to marry children.
We don't allow either (assuming by 'children' you mean those under 16 years of age) - but that is a different matter to allowing adults who are free to marry to do so without interference.
-
Furthermore Spud how do you define people who aren't married but have children.
You do seem to be confusing and conflating a social construct with a biological imperative.
-
Furthermore Spud how do you define people who aren't married but have children.
You do seem to be confusing and conflating a social construct with a biological imperative.
It does seem that way.
-
In addition, on whose authority is it that marriage should involve the potential to be a 'biological family' predicated?
A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.
-
A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.
That was a complete non sequitur to the question asked.
Here it is again, reread and try and answer the question
'In addition, on whose authority is it that marriage should involve the potential to be a 'biological family'
-
A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.
In your opinion!
-
A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.
You forgot to cite your authority for your opinions and explain how this authority, and your opinions, are binding on me or anyone else.
-
A biological family has one parent of each sex, and this is the model on which marriage is based. One man plus another man doesn't mirror this model. A remarried widower does mirror it.
Wherase I completely agree with you. Spud, that this is indeed the model for Christian marriage, can I point out that marriage was never confined to Christianity - or Judaism, for that matter?
Should we as Christians, impose our concept of marriage, grounded in Scripture as it certainly is, on those who do not accept either Scripture or, indeed, Christ?
-
Wherase I completely agree with you. Spud, that this is indeed the model for Christian marriage, can I point out that marriage was never confined to Christianity - or Judaism, for that matter?
Should we as Christians, impose our concept of marriage, grounded in Scripture as it certainly is, on those who do not accept either Scripture or, indeed, Christ?
Not impose, Jim, but yes we should state what we believe and warn that God deals with sin, we know this through the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.
-
Not impose, Jim, but yes we should state what we believe and warn that God deals with sin, we know this through the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Homosexuality isn't WRONG!
-
You forgot to cite your authority for your opinions and explain how this authority, and your opinions, are binding on me or anyone else.
Aside from it being common sense (as shown by the very sensible Anchorman agreeing with the Christian view), God's word is the authority, and he vindicates it by bringing down leaders who mock it.
-
Aside from it being common sense (as shown by the very sensible Anchorman agreeing with the Christian view), God's word is the authority, and he vindicates it by bringing down leaders who mock it.
What evidence is there the documents making up the Bible have anything to do with any god? The god featured there seems like a very human production, with all the worst human characteristics!
-
Not impose, Jim, but yes we should state what we believe and warn that God deals with sin, we know this through the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.
At yes, your god and his penchant for killing children.
-
Aside from it being common sense (as shown by the very sensible Anchorman agreeing with the Christian view)
Jim does indeed point out that your position fits with Christian thinking, although your adding the epithet 'common sense' is another matter entirely since I don't think that it is 'common sense' to discriminate. Jim also pointed out that marriage isn't an exclusively Christian institution and said:
Should we as Christians, impose our concept of marriage, grounded in Scripture as it certainly is, on those who do not accept either Scripture or, indeed, Christ?
You then say;
God's word is the authority, and he vindicates it by bringing down leaders who mock it.
Leaving aside the bizarre notion of divine retribution, I think you need to consider the points Jim made: that marriage isn't the exclusive province of Christianity and that 'God's word', and however this is understood and taken seriously by Christians on a personal basis, isn't authoritative in a secular society.
-
The god featured there seems like a very human production, with all the worst human characteristics!
I've lost count of the number of times you've made this comment - in various guises, Floo. Could you fulfil something that you have never managed to do, before? In other words, could you provide even one piece of evidence in support of your comment.
-
Not impose, Jim, but yes we should state what we believe and warn that God deals with sin, we know this through the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Warn?
Fine; I can live with that.
If, however those who hear the warning choose to ignore it, and that is, of course, their right to do so, we should not seek to try and impede the legal marriage of one person with another, even when we may not agree with it.
Only when those who profess to be Christian try to marry outside the NT definition of marriafge , and try to do so in a Christian setting, should we - rightly - protest.
-
... marriage isn't the exclusive province of Christianity and that 'God's word', and however this is understood and taken seriously by Christians on a personal basis, isn't authoritative in a secular society.
However, the fact that marriage has - throughout history and across cultures - been between a man and a woman would, in my view, have a strong influence on how we ought to regard it. I accept that there has been recognition of homosexual relationships over history and culture, but never in any formal manner such as marriage until the last 20 or so years.
-
Only when those who profess to be Christian try to marry outside the NT definition of marriafge , and try to do so in a Christian setting, should we - rightly - protest.
Quite agree, Jim
You might enjoy a book I'm reading - 'Archbishop' by Michele Guinness. I won't give the story away, but no doubt others will seek it out.
-
However, the fact that marriage has - throughout history and across cultures - been between a man and a woman would, in my view, have a strong influence on how we ought to regard it.
So what?
Things change, and history is littered with change, and advocating and enabling change via democratic means is surely a feature of any progressive society.
I accept that there has been recognition of homosexual relationships over history and culture, but never in any formal manner such as marriage until the last 20 or so years.
Again, so what?
The social climate in relation to homosexuality has changed in the culture you and I both live in: you don't have to personally approve of SSM to recognise that removing legal discrimination in respect of secular marriage now has both social and democratic support, hence the legislative change: here in the UK we don't live in a theocracy.
-
So what?
Things change, and history is littered with change, and advocating and enabling change via democratic means is surely a feature of any progressive society.
And some of the changes that this particular progressive society has made would be regarded as regressive by many ordinary people - the treatment of the elderly, the poor, the young, ... . I'm afraid that I don't actually regard modern Britain as a particularly democratic, let alone progressive society.
The social climate in relation to homosexuality has changed in the culture you and I both live in: you don't have to personally approve of SSM to recognise that removing legal discrimination in respect of secular marriage now has both social and democratic support, hence the legislative change: here in the UK we don't live in a theocracy.
I would agree that the "social climate in relation to homosexuality" (and a number of other behaviours) has changed - but in my view it has done so in much the same way that the American electorate's 'social climate' has changed - as a result of untruths and bullying becoming the norm.
-
And some of the changes that this particular progressive society has made would be regarded as regressive by many ordinary people - the treatment of the elderly, the poor, the young, ... . I'm afraid that I don't actually regard modern Britain as a particularly democratic, let alone progressive society.
I think you are confusing problems in the practical delivery of interventions, such as healthcare, with what society is seeking to do: comparing now with the pre-1948 situation highlights what I'd say is social progress even if it isn't yet perfect, and of course in democratic terms you have regular opportunities to influence who is involved in governance arrangements.
I find it harder to accept your doubts on social progress when, as far as I can see, you'd prefer that we still discriminated against homosexual people.
I would agree that the "social climate in relation to homosexuality" (and a number of other behaviours) has changed - but in my view it has done so in much the same way that the American electorate's 'social climate' has changed - as a result of untruths and bullying becoming the norm.
This is yet another of your odd attempts at a tu quoque form of argument by equating your distaste of SSM with claimed negatives involving politics elsewhere, and as such it is fallacious and has no merit. I'd also say that your comparison of what has happened in the UK (ex. NI) in respect of removing discrimination with 'untruths and bullying' elsewhere is both perverse and offensive, though I doubt you understand why.
The train has left the station, and you have been left behind.
-
I think you are confusing problems in the practical delivery of interventions, such as healthcare, with what society is seeking to do: comparing now with the pre-1948 situation highlights what I'd say is social progress even if it isn't yet perfect, and of course in democratic terms you have regular opportunities to influence who is involved in governance arrangements.
Sorry, Gordon, but the reason the interventions are problematic is precisely because of the social attitude that currently prevails. Our society is far more concerned with self-satisfaction and self-aggrandisement than it was 50+ years ago, and the less able, the less well-off and the less popular are increasingly becoming sidelined. Think of all the online bullying that takes place; the online crime which has meant that crime figures in the relevant overall categories have rocketed; the dismissive attitude towards the poor, disposed and disenfranchised that rune rampant in the halls of local authorities and central government (and has done for over a quarter of a century); even, in a way, the Brexit vote which was based on less than subtle untruths and misrepresentations.
I find it harder to accept your doubts on social progress when, as far as I can see, you'd prefer that we still discriminated against homosexual people.
Whilst I would agree that society has progressed in terms of its attitude to homosexuality - I would suggest that it has gone backwards in its attitude to homosexual relationships; in fact, relationships in general, over the last 40-odd years. .
This is yet another of your odd attempts at a tu quoque form of argument by equating your distaste of SSM with claimed negatives involving politics elsewhere, and as such it is fallacious and has no merit. I'd also say that your comparison of what has happened in the UK (ex. NI) in respect of removing discrimination with 'untruths and bullying' elsewhere is both perverse and offensive, though I doubt you understand why.
I have been opposing injustice and other political issues - both domestic and international - for far longer than I've been opposing SSM, Gordon. I believe that legalising SSM was a retrogressive step in the bigger picture, as it fundamentally changes the relational structure of society and will, in the long run, be seen to have been damaging to society as a whole. I realise that you believe differently, but I haven't seen anything, research-wise, to suggest that the long-term outlook will follow your pattern.
The train has left the station, and you have been left behind.
Sometimes, a train leaves the station and people get left behind, but they still get to the destination before that train does.
-
I'm afraid that I don't actually regard modern Britain as a particularly democratic, let alone progressive society.
And you achieve that progressive and democratic society by denying a group of people (gay in this case) of equal rights within society?
Do you even read what you type?
-
Sorry, Gordon, but the reason the interventions are problematic is precisely because of the social attitude that currently prevails.
You'll need to explain how social attitudes are critical in terms of how general services are delivered: ethos is certainly an aspect but so are employment, resources, identifying priorities and how politics functions - but even so I'm struggling to see that removing discrimination is a bad thing.
Our society is far more concerned with self-satisfaction and self-aggrandisement than it was 50+ years ago, and the less able, the less well-off and the less popular are increasingly becoming sidelined.
That sounds like a sweeping generalisation supplemented by your opinion: nobody claims everything is perfect, but even if so that isn't a reason to hold back on doing what can be done to improve matters.
Think of all the online bullying that takes place; the online crime which has meant that crime figures in the relevant overall categories have rocketed; the dismissive attitude towards the poor, disposed and disenfranchised that rune rampant in the halls of local authorities and central government (and has done for over a quarter of a century); even, in a way, the Brexit vote which was based on less than subtle untruths and misrepresentations.
As I said, things aren't perfect but in the context of SSM so what? That some good stuff happens is surely better than no good stuff happening.
Whilst I would agree that society has progressed in terms of its attitude to homosexuality - I would suggest that it has gone backwards in its attitude to homosexual relationships; in fact, relationships in general, over the last 40-odd years.
That would be your opinion, based no doubt on what you think your faith determines, but presumably you've noticed that not all in UK society regard Christianity are being relevant or authoritative.
I have been opposing injustice and other political issues - both domestic and international - for far longer than I've been opposing SSM, Gordon.
Super, yet it seems you'd prefer it if we still discriminated against homosexual people who want to marry each other.
I believe that legalising SSM was a retrogressive step in the bigger picture, as it fundamentally changes the relational structure of society and will, in the long run, be seen to have been damaging to society as a whole.
So you do, but fortunately your views aren't binding on the rest of us.
I realise that you believe differently, but I haven't seen anything, research-wise, to suggest that the long-term outlook will follow your pattern.
I don't have a 'long-term outlook' or 'pattern' since the best I can do is make informed assumptions regarding the future, where recent events confirm the folly of being unduly certain of anything. I have no idea what changes might occur in what remains of my lifetime, be they social, political or just events, that will require me to review my 'outlook'.
Sometimes, a train leaves the station and people get left behind, but they still get to the destination before that train does.
Your attempt at a witty riposte doesn't even get you to the end of the platform.
-
Whilst I would agree that society has progressed in terms of its attitude to homosexuality - I would suggest that it has gone backwards in its attitude to homosexual relationships; in fact, relationships in general, over the last 40-odd years. .
What does that statement mean?
-
Whilst I would agree that society has progressed in terms of its attitude to homosexuality - I would suggest that it has gone backwards in its attitude to homosexual relationships; in fact, relationships in general, over the last 40-odd years. .
What does that statement mean?
Oh it's his usual twisty-turny language to make himself think that he is being clever. It will all boil down to the equivalent of hate the sin, love the sinner. He does after all have many gay friends. ::)
-
Oh it's his usual twisty-turny language to make himself think that he is being clever. It will all boil down to the equivalent of hate the sin, love the sinner. He does after all have many gay friends. ::)
Apart from the bigotry involved the phrase, 'hate the sin, but love the sinner', is so very patronising! >:(
-
At yes, your god and his penchant for killing children.
'Penchant' implies a taste for doing something, so you have the wrong word there.
-
'Penchant' implies a taste for doing something, so you have the wrong word there.
I chose the word because of what it means. It's the right word for an habitual child killer.
-
Jim does indeed point out that your position fits with Christian thinking, although your adding the epithet 'common sense' is another matter entirely since I don't think that it is 'common sense' to discriminate.
There's nothing wrong with giving something a name. In this case the thing we want to name is the husband-wife contract to remain faithful; this is unique because it can aid bringing up their own children, and so needs its own name. If you want to divorce this child-rearing aspect of marriage from the relationship aspect, as with a gay couple whose gametes are incompatible, you need a separate word for a contract between them.
-
There's nothing wrong with giving something a name. In this case the thing we want to name is the husband-wife contract to remain faithful; this is unique because it can aid bringing up their own children, and so needs its own name. If you want to divorce this child-rearing aspect of marriage from the relationship aspect, as with a gay couple whose gametes are incompatible, you need a separate word for a contract between them.
less of the 'we' here.
-
The omnipotent Christian 'we'. It's the same old arrogance - 'you need a separate word ...' Hang on, no, there is no need for a separate word, since Parliament has already given us one, same sex marriage, or colloquially, equal marriage. If bigots want to use their own word, OK.
-
There's nothing wrong with giving something a name. In this case the thing we want to name is the husband-wife contract to remain faithful; this is unique because it can aid bringing up their own children, and so needs its own name.
I think you mean you, Spud: not 'we' since you don't speak for me, and even if you'd rather like the sole rights to the term 'marriage' for Christianity you aren't in that position, and nor will you be.
If you want to divorce this child-rearing aspect of marriage from the relationship aspect, as with a gay couple whose gametes are incompatible, you need a separate word for a contract between them.
Nope - 'marriage' will do just fine thanks.The term covers precisely what the relevant legislation allows, and this doesn't include prescribing the possibility of children.
The thing you aren't recognising, Spud, is that the term 'marriage' isn't defined by you or by Christian dogma (no matter how much you'd prefer that is was) and that for some of us that any attempts to limit 'marriage' to your preferred definition is advocating the return of legal discrimination.
So, within what the legislation allows, you are free to marry whomever agrees to marry you, and I think you'd be well advised to extend the same courtesy to everyone else.
-
There's nothing wrong with giving something a name. In this case the thing we want to name is the husband-wife contract to remain faithful; this is unique because it can aid bringing up their own children, and so needs its own name. If you want to divorce this child-rearing aspect of marriage from the relationship aspect, as with a gay couple whose gametes are incompatible, you need a separate word for a contract between them.
Single parents and gay parents are just as capable of bringing up children as heterosexual married couples.
-
I think you mean you, Spud: not 'we' since you don't speak for me, and even if you'd rather like the sole rights to the term 'marriage' for Christianity you aren't in that position, and nor will you be.
I think the overall majority of people worldwide would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Nope - 'marriage' will do just fine thanks.The term covers precisely what the relevant legislation allows, and this doesn't include prescribing the possibility of children.
Sorry but a husband-wife relationship is not the same as a male-male or female-female relationship, so it should be described differently.
The thing you aren't recognising, Spud, is that the term 'marriage' isn't defined by you or by Christian dogma (no matter how much you'd prefer that is was) and that for some of us that any attempts to limit 'marriage' to your preferred definition is advocating the return of legal discrimination.
This argument does not work, because if you redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex you then open the door to legal discrimination against people for whom that is against their religious convictions. This denies a person their right to freedom of belief. For example, Lillian Ladele lost her job as a registrar because the change in the law meant she would have to officiate at same-sex partnership ceremonies.
So, within what the legislation allows, you are free to marry whomever agrees to marry you, and I think you'd be well advised to extend the same courtesy to everyone else.
Even if the legislation regarding 'everyone else' is discriminatory to some? ???
-
I think the overall majority of people worldwide would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I think the overall majority of people worldwide don't believe that Christianity is the one true religion.
Should we legislate to reflect that?
-
This denies a person their right to freedom of belief.
It does no such thing. It does not allow them to discriminate based on their belief. A completely different proposition.
Odd how this issue motivates some religious people more than any other.
Anyhow I suggest we have a free for all. Many NHS staff I know are tired of treating pissed, racist, sexist, homophobic members of the public on a Friday and Saturday night - can they have an exemption from not performing their jobs on the grounds that they are decent caring human beings and shouldn't have to deal with this shit altogether.
OK it's not a religious exemption but at least it's based on real things happening rather than the wibblings of demented, bigoted minds that should have better things to do with their time and efforts.
-
Excellent post Trent.
----------------------
Hope said: ... And some of the changes that this particular progressive society has made would be regarded as regressive by many ordinary people - the treatment of the elderly, the poor, the young, ... . I'm afraid that I don't actually regard modern Britain as a particularly democratic, let alone progressive society.
Seriously????
Let's go back fifty years give or take. I am nearly 67 so I can do that quite easily and cannot remember a fairer, kinder society - quite the opposite in fact though things were beginning to change for the better thanks to some enlightened people, reformers, who were prepared to stick their necks out and make their voices heard.
Hope, you are seeing the past through rose-tinted specs. I wouldn't go back to that time - when I was young, poor and helpless - for anything.
Of course nothing is perfect now, there will always be work to do, but don't tell me life was better "back in the day". It was alright for some.
Ask those who were sick, poor, marginalised by society, mixed race, unmarried mothers, shut away in 'special' schools for being in 'moral danger', tenants of Rachman-type dwellings, Educationally Sub-Normal (as those with learning difficulties were then titled), committed to mental hospitals, women paid less than men for doing the same work.
Gay people were treated in an appalling manner!
We had capital punishment in this country as recently as 1964.
Nuclear bomb tests.
I could go on and on but it's time I went to bed.
-
It does no such thing. It does not allow them to discriminate based on their belief. A completely different proposition.
Prohibiting someone from working in a certain job unless they are willing to act against their conscience is indeed denying them freedom of belief, and is denying them the right to work to support themselves.
-
Prohibiting someone from working in a certain job unless they are willing to act against their conscience is indeed denying them freedom of belief, and is denying them the right to work to support themselves.
So if I want, as a doctor, to refuse to treat Jews I should be allowed to do so?
-
I think the overall majority of people worldwide would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Which you can't ever know, and of course your point is irrelevant regarding how states (like the UK) determine their legislation, which in this case legally defines marriage.
Sorry but a husband-wife relationship is not the same as a male-male or female-female relationship, so it should be described differently.
In your opinion, and the opinions of some of your fellow Christians no doubt: however, your opinion isn't binding on the rest of us and was rejected by the legislatures in most parts of the UK during the recent changes to the legal definition of marriage.
This argument does not work, because if you redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex you then open the door to legal discrimination against people for whom that is against their religious convictions.
Nope - any more than legally enforceable speed-limits discriminate against those who would prefer to go faster: they are entitled to their opinion of course but not to the extent of enacting legislation to ensure the rest of us comply with their opinions when the arguments against these opinions are held to be more compelling (by the legislature).
This denies a person their right to freedom of belief. For example, Lillian Ladele lost her job as a registrar because the change in the law meant she would have to officiate at same-sex partnership ceremonies.
Nope - she is free to comply with the law, which is the core aspect of her role. If on a personal basis she can't then she must resign from that position - her personal opinion is neither here nor there.
Even if the legislation regarding 'everyone else' is discriminatory to some? ???
In this case yes, since the legislature decides legislation - that she doesn't agree doesn't discriminate against her since she is free to retain her personal opinion, just like the situation regarding compliance with traffic legislation.
-
Prohibiting someone from working in a certain job unless they are willing to act against their conscience is indeed denying them freedom of belief, and is denying them the right to work to support themselves.
Then they should get another job if their beliefs are that strong.
Listen I have to deal with people in my job that I do not wish to deal with, due to the fact that I know that if I met them on the street in certain circumstances they would beat me up for being gay. Allow my right to act on my conscience and to not deal with these people.
I can't. I have a job to so. Do keep up. It does not stop their freedom of belief. It stops them acting on it in a discriminatory fashion.
-
So if I want, as a doctor, to refuse to treat Jews I should be allowed to do so?
I think a doctor can withhold a treatment from a patient if in his opinion it is unnecessary?
-
I think a doctor can withhold a treatment from a patient if in his opinion it is unnecessary?
Not an answer to the question. Can I refuse to treat a Jewish person as a doctor because it's against my conscience?
-
Why would any doctor refuse to treat someone on grounds of race, religion or cultural background? I can't see that situation arising, I've no doubt there have been and probably still are docs with personal prejudices but they wouldn't get very far. If someone is in need of medical care, it has to be given regardless of how the medics may feel about them personally.
Doctors, however, do vary in their opinions about treatment, disagreeing amongst themselves about what is appropriate, calling on colleagues for further input; that's very common and not a bad thing.
Quote from: Spud on December 18, 2016, 08:52:21 PM
I think the overall majority of people worldwide would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Has there been a recent worldwide survey, Spud? I know there have been surveys in this country.
I think the overall majority of marriages worldwide will be between a man and a woman because the majority of people are heterosexual.
The legalisation of SSM is, imo, extremely fair but you don't have to feel threatened, it's not going to increase the proportion of gay people.
Let's face it, if you or I got divorced we aren't going to say, "Ooh, next time I'll look for a (same sex person)", are we? (Well, I'm not, don't know about you but that's your business so I won't pry.)
Life will go on much the same for the majority of us; a previously persecuted minority will have some long overdue security and a chance of happiness.
-
Not an answer to the question. Can I refuse to treat a Jewish person as a doctor because it's against my conscience?
Assuming you mean because this person is of Jewish ethnicity and not because he practices Judaism, then no.
-
Assuming you mean because this person is of Jewish ethnicity and not because he practices Judaism, then no.
....and if he was of Jewish ethnicity and was a practising Jew?
-
If you mean because he practices Judaism, then no also. Judaism, however, would require someone to abstain from homosexual activity and so it might not be appropriate to compare the doctor who can't agree with Judaism, with the registrar or baker who is being asked to endorse homosexual activity.
-
Then they should get another job if their beliefs are that strong.
But what if a person's skill-set is in a field where government, or society require them to behave in ways that run counter to their beliefs? For instance, a doctor being required to perfom abortions against his own principles, or a midwife being required to carry out FGM?
-
If you mean because he practices Judaism, then no also. Judaism, however, would require someone to abstain from homosexual activity and so it might not be appropriate to compare the doctor who can't agree with Judaism, with the registrar or baker who is being asked to endorse homosexual activity.
Spud
You are tying yourself in knots trying to rationalise what is irrational: homophobia.
I think you'll find that medics here in the UK would find themselves being referred to the GMC on charges of unethical conduct were they to decline to treat (when they had the capacity to treat) solely on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the person seeking treatment - I've certainly never encountered a single instance over along NHS career and I'm surprised that you think your scenario is likely - seems to me that you are bad-mouthing the medical profession.
Coming, as they do, just after the death of Rabbi Lionel Blue, your comments are hollow and would be offensive if they weren't so obviously naive.
-
But what if a person's skill-set is in a field where government, or society require them to behave in ways that run counter to their beliefs? For instance, a doctor being required to perfom abortions against his own principles, or a midwife being required to carry out FGM?
In the former case there are conscience clauses that apply within operational policies regarding abortion (in Scotland anyway - don't know about elsewhere in the UK since the NHS here is fully devolved). In the latter case the midwife would be committing a criminal act - but then they aren't required to carry out FGM anyway: surprised you even thought this was the case.
-
But what if a person's skill-set is in a field where government, or society require them to behave in ways that run counter to their beliefs? For instance, a doctor being required to perfom abortions against his own principles, or a midwife being required to carry out FGM?
No medic will be required by law to carry out those procedures, Hope. Let's face it, they wouldn't work in that field if they were against abortion, they'd specialise in something different like ENT or Endocrinology.
What could and does happen, rarely nowadays, is doctors and nurses treating someone, on a ward or in A&E, who has complications, eg haemorrhage or infection, after a termination - and that they would do caringly, making no judgement. I know that for a fact.
-
Assuming you mean because this person is of Jewish ethnicity and not because he practices Judaism, then no.
so it would be OK to refuse to that someone because they were a practicing Jewish person?
-
If you mean because he practices Judaism, then no also. Judaism, however, would require someone to abstain from homosexual activity and so it might not be appropriate to compare the doctor who can't agree with Judaism, with the registrar or baker who is being asked to endorse homosexual activity.
why not? If it's against their conscience which was your position? You are now taking the position that the conscience clause only applies if it agrees with YOUR beliefs.
-
Spud
You are tying yourself in knots trying to rationalise what is irrational: homophobia.
I think you'll find that medics here in the UK would find themselves being referred to the GMC on charges of unethical conduct were they to decline to treat (when they had the capacity to treat) solely on the grounds of the sexual orientation of the person seeking treatment - I've certainly never encountered a single instance over along NHS career and I'm surprised that you think your scenario is likely - seems to me that you are bad-mouthing the medical profession.
Coming, as they do, just after the death of Rabbi Lionel Blue, your comments are hollow and would be offensive if they weren't so obviously naive.
Just to be clear, I have not said anywhere that I think a medic should decline to treat a patient on the grounds of sexual orientation. Nor that I would decline to provide other types of service to someone on such grounds.
You're confusing same sex attraction, an example of sexual orientation, with acting on that attraction, such as by marrying someone of the same sex.
The first is not an issue because the person has no control over same sex attraction. He does have control over whether or not he acts on it.
Taking it further, if a homosexual needed treatment for injuries that resulted from homosexual activity, then a doctor should provide treatment, but on the basis that the patient would stop that activity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he continued it, the doctor would not be obliged to keep dishing out treatment.
-
Just to be clear, I have not said anywhere that I think a medic should decline to treat a patient on the grounds of sexual orientation. Nor that I would decline to provide other types of service to someone on such grounds.
You're confusing same sex attraction, an example of sexual orientation, with acting on that attraction, such as by marrying someone of the same sex.
The first is not an issue because the person has no control over same sex attraction. He does have control over whether or not he acts on it.
If a homosexual needed treatment for injuries that resulted from homosexual activity, then a doctor should provide treatment, but on the basis that the patient would stop that activity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he continued it, the doctor would not be obliged to keep dishing out treatment.
so you would not treat a practising homosexual? And yes you would be wrong.
-
so you would not treat a practising homosexual?
Yes I would, but I would not perform a same sex marriage ceremony for him. Also I would not continue to treat him if his illness was being made worse by homosexual activity that he had been advised to stop. Just as with any kind of medical treatment.
-
Yes I would, but I would not perform a same sex marriage ceremony for him. Also I would not continue to treat him if his illness was being made worse by homosexual activity that he had been advised to stop. Just as with any kind of medical treatment.
but you think that anyone refusing to treat a gay person because of their conscience is ok? And not treating a Jewish person is OK, if that is against your conscience? Struggling to undundetstand what you are arguing for.
-
so you would not treat a practising homosexual?
It's possible to treat him/her without endorsing or promoting homosexual activity. It's not possible to bake a cake saying 'support same sex marriage' without endorsing homosexual activity.
-
Yes I would, but I would not perform a same sex marriage ceremony for him.
Then don't become a Registrar and you won't have to.
Also I would not continue to treat him if his illness was being made worse by homosexual activity that he had been advised to stop. Just as with any kind of medical treatment.
So, if we exclude STD's (which apply to heterosexual people too) exactly what 'illness' are you referring to in relation to homosexual activity?
You seem to be thinking along the lines of, say, emphysema and smoking - so what specifically are you claiming?
-
What is wrong with homosexual activity?
-
but you think that anyone refusing to treat a gay person because of their conscience is ok?
Where did I say that?
And not treating a Jewish person is OK, if that is against your conscience? Struggling to undundetstand what you are arguing for.
The only situation I can think of where not treating a Jewish person would be ok is if they asked for a circumcision that they didn't actually need.
-
Some Christians seem fascinated by what men get up to in bed. I don't know why.
-
It's possible to treat him/her without endorsing or promoting homosexual activity. It's not possible to bake a cake saying 'support same sex marriage' without endorsing homosexual activity.
it is indeed, but you weren't asked that.
-
Where did I say that?The only situation I can think of where not treating a Jewish person would be ok is if they asked for a circumcision that they didn't actually need.
I didn't say you did , see question mark. Why are you misrepresenting what you are being asked? Please explain what you think 'conscience' allows you to refuse.
-
It's possible to treat him/her without endorsing or promoting homosexual activity.
This might come as a shock, Spud, but medics tend not to be judgmental and, moreover, in most clinical situations the sexual orientation of the person is irrelevant to the treatment provided.
It's not possible to bake a cake saying 'support same sex marriage' without endorsing it homosexual activity.
Of course it is: you just make the cake to meet the needs of your customer and keep your opinions to yourself.
-
I didn't say you did , see question mark. Why are you misrepresenting what you are being asked? Please explain what you think 'conscience' allows you to refuse.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I would say no one should do something their conscience tells them is wrong.
-
Of course it is: you just make the cake to meet the needs of your customer and keep your opinions to yourself.
Possibly, though with difficulty. What about conducting a same sex marriage ceremony?
-
Possibly, though with difficulty. What about conducting a same sex marriage ceremony?
I'd have no problem with it whatsoever.
-
I'd have no problem with it whatsoever.
What, conducting it without endorsing homosexual activity?
-
What, conducting it without endorsing homosexual activity?
As has been pointed out ad nauseam many people do things in their jobs that conflict with their conscience. Religious people do not have a get out clause from this.
-
What, conducting it without endorsing homosexual activity?
What makes you think my endorsement (or yours) is relevant?
I endorse happiness and decry discrimination: give it a try yourself.
-
Possibly, though with difficulty. What about conducting a same sex marriage ceremony?
Seriously, are you likely to be asked to conduct a same sex marriage? You're not a registrar; registrars are obliged to do what the law requires, they are not Religious people. If they raise objections on religious grounds, they are in the wrong job. Being a registrar is a secular job. Neither is it a particularly high powered job, it's something most people can do if they want to. All that's needed is a calm, pleasant manner and reasonable clerical skills.
You can please yourself what you think about SSM but it isn't gonna affect you.
-
What makes you think my endorsement (or yours) is relevant?
I endorse happiness and decry discrimination: give it a try yourself.
Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.
The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission is a better word than endorsing.
-
As has been pointed out ad nauseam many people do things in their jobs that conflict with their conscience. Religious people do not have a get out clause from this.
No law should make going against one's conscience compulsory.
-
No law should make going against one's conscience compulsory.
what if it is against my conscience not to punch Christians?
-
Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.
The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission is a better word than endorsing.
And so by the same token if staff in A & E patch up thugs and send them out of hospital they are endorsing violence.
your arguments make no sense.
-
No law should make going against one's conscience compulsory.
Then do another job.
Simple
-
Then do another job.
Simple
Simple but unjust.
-
Simple but unjust.
No it's not.
If you cannot do the job you should leave or be sacked.
-
Simple but unjust.
Not unjust at all, unless you have a true free for all where you allow everybody to act according to their conscience. But I would suggest that way madness lies.
-
Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.
Don't be silly, Spud - you can provide a service competently without having a personal opinion on the matter: it isn't about you, it's about them!
The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission is a better word than endorsing.
Even sillier: since for the registrar to perform their role the people involved need to meet the legal criteria for marriage (which includes both familial relation and age). Provided they do, the registrar's personal opinion is irrelevant.
-
Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.
The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission is a better word than endorsing.
Maybe they don't intend to have sexual intercourse. Where's the sanctioning then?
-
Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.
The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission is a better word than endorsing.
Then you would be in the wrong job.
To be a registrar, according to the careers service:
You’ll need:
the ability to relate to people from all backgrounds and cultures
tact, patience and empathy, for dealing with people who may be distressed
the ability to understand and apply rules and laws
clear and accurate handwriting
the ability to work under pressure
administrative skills
So, to sanction illegal marriages, is not part of your remit.
-
No it's not.
If you cannot do the job you should leave or be sacked.
So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.
-
So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.
Yes.
If you cannot do the job then do not apply.
Why is this not simple to understand?
-
So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.
So basically, in your world anyone can refuse a service to anyone else whilst doing thier job as long as they can claim that it is against thier conscience. Is that correct?
-
No law should make going against one's conscience compulsory.
If your conscience tells you to discriminate and this conflicts with laws enabled to promote equality and deter discrimination then you'd do well to avoid situations that you have this personal antipathy towards - so don't seek to become a registrar.
Given than SSM has been in place in the UK (except N.I.) for a while now, and there are no frightened horses to be seen, I'm surprised you haven't moved on as yet.
-
So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.
Are you hard of thinking or what?
You have had it explained to you that everyday, people do things in their jobs that go against their conscience. All you are doing is pleading for special exemption on religious grounds. It won't work. Too many different issues intersecting would cause chaos.
I believe beating people up is wrong and if given a choice I would not treat or sanction the treatment of these scrotes, I do not have that choice - do I stop working for the NHS where these people are treated?
What is wrong with your thought processes that you can't grasp this?
-
Spud is wriggling, because he's trying to insinuate his homophobic ideas in, without actually saying, ew, men having sex, ew, ick, or whatever the theological equivalent is.
-
So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.
Last year the drink driving limit here in Scotland was reduced (it is now lower here than elsewhere in the UK) so that where previously someone may have passed the test they would now fail: this being social policy legislation to discourage drink-driving.
I'm a traffic policeman and I disagree personally with the change - so do I:
a) Work on a personal basis using the old limit and don't charge drivers who wouldn't have failed under the old limit but now do under the new one.
or
b) Apply the new limit in line with the requirements of my role despite my personal views.
So, Spud, is it a or b?
-
So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.
If you realise something will go against what you believe in, you should not apply for a job where that is likely to happen.
-
Spud is wriggling, because he's trying to insinuate his homophobic ideas in, without actually saying, ew, men having sex, ew, ick, or whatever the theological equivalent is.
Spud appears to think that SSM will somehow result in there being more homosexuals than hitherto ???.
Methinks he protests too much.
-
Spud appears to think that SSM will somehow result in there being more homosexuals than hitherto ???.
Methinks he protests too much.
Or will Spud going on about it, produce more gays? Just joking, that's the Barbara Streisand effect. It might increase opposition to homophobia, partly because of the strange contortions which Spud's thought processes seem to go through.
-
Spud appears to think that SSM will somehow result in there being more homosexuals than hitherto ???.
Methinks he protests too much.
He's still upset about the lesbian who turned him down thereby acting unjustly.
-
Are you hard of thinking or what?
You have had it explained to you that everyday, people do things in their jobs that go against their conscience. All you are doing is pleading for special exemption on religious grounds. It won't work. Too many different issues intersecting would cause chaos.
I believe beating people up is wrong and if given a choice I would not treat or sanction the treatment of these scrotes, I do not have that choice - do I stop working for the NHS where these people are treated?
What is wrong with your thought processes that you can't grasp this?
I am cleverer than the average spud, but probably dimmer than most Trentvoyagers.
Religious institutions have been given exemption from conducting same-sex marriages. If it can be shown that a person (say for example a registrar) is a member of a religious institution ie there is evidence that he holds to the beliefs of it then I think he should also be exempt from laws requiring him to conduct such ceremonies. After all what is the point in allowing church leaders etc to act according to their faith but not allow their members the same right?
Happy New Astronomical Year (for tomorrow?), by the way :)
-
Religious institutions not civil ones.
The fact remains if you are interested in treating everybody fairly then you have to allow them to act on their conscience whether it be a Christian one or a pagan one or humanist one, etc.
And if you do that it will be unmanageable. This is why we pass employment laws and in fact laws in general to try to encourage the smooth running of society. They don't always work - but as an aim it's no bad thing.
Anyway what if a member of the Church wants to carry out a same sex wedding are you going to allow that on the grounds of their conscience?
-
I am cleverer than the average spud, but probably dimmer than most Trentvoyagers.
Don't know how clever the 'average spud' is, Spud, so that might not be something to boast about - but I commend your flash of insight in the latter part of your sentence
Religious institutions have been given exemption from conducting same-sex marriages.
Which is disgraceful - a license for them to continue with their homophobia.
If it can be shown that a person (say for example a registrar) is a member of a religious institution ie there is evidence that he holds to the beliefs of it then I think he should also be exempt from laws requiring him to conduct such ceremonies.
Nope - if their homophobia gets in the way of them doing there job then they should resign.
After all what is the point in allowing church leaders etc to act according to their faith but not allow their members the same right?
There is no point - these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars.
-
He's still upset about the lesbian who turned him down thereby acting unjustly.
I'd forgotten about that. It goes some way to explaining his attitude though I would have thought a few years down the line that would have faded. However:
Spud, It's quite immature and unhealthy to ponder on the personal lives of other adults; such scrutiny is akin to voyeurism. No-one here is a teenager.
There is a lot more to a person than their sexual orientation and choice of partner. That fact is the same for all of us.
Speaking as a Christian (anyone not, please don't pounce), it's my belief that God looks at each one of us as a whole person, not just bits of us. He made us, after all. I'm pretty sure he is far more concerned with how we treat our fellow human beings in this life.
-
If white racists were permitted to refuse to have dealings with people of colour in their workplace, would that be acceptable? No of course it wouldn't! I bet some racists may use the Bible to justify their evil bigotry! >:( By the same token nasty bigotry towards homosexuals using religion as an excuse is totally unacceptable too.
-
Yeah, but Brownie, some Christians are riveted by the dangly bits. Hee hee hee.
-
If white racists were permitted to refuse to have dealings with people of colour in their workplace, would that be acceptable? No of course it wouldn't! I bet some racists may use the Bible to justify their evil bigotry! >:( By the same token nasty bigotry towards homosexuals using religion as an excuse is totally unacceptable too.
You are right that the Bible has been used to justify racism in the past.
No-one would be allowed to discriminate in the workplace nowadays, thank goodness, I am old enough to remember when that sort of attitude was quite routine and, no, it was not acceptable then as it isn't now but it happened - likewise attitudes towards gays.
Yeah, but Brownie, some Christians are riveted by the dangly bits. Hee hee hee.
Or, in the case of the female sex, lack of dangly bits, lower ones anyway. Hee double hee! We are talking norty while the grown ups are out. Which reminds me of a song by the legendary Flanders and Swann, also popularised by the Beverley Sisters:
http://www.cliff-colman.net/Flanders&Swann.htm
-
You are right that the Bible has been used to justify racism in the past.
No-one would be allowed to discriminate in the workplace nowadays, thank goodness, I am old enough to remember when that sort of attitude was quite routine and, no, it was not acceptable then as it isn't now but it happened - likewise attitudes towards gays.
Or, in the case of the female sex, lack of dangly bits, lower ones anyway. Hee double hee! We are talking norty while the grown ups are out. Which reminds me of a song by the legendary Flanders and Swann, also popularised by the Beverley Sisters:
http://www.cliff-colman.net/Flanders&Swann.htm
Well, lesbians don't seem to get people in a froth as much, do they? I suppose lesbian s*x sounds like a big fun cuddle, whereas men in bed involves bottoms (excuse you, madam), and willies, and shock horror, some kind of coming together. I am trying to defeat the inbuilt censor here, which doesn't like certain phrases.
-
I've never worked out what lesbians do, exactly, and am now too old to care.
I think they don't do anything much except cuddle in bed and share the household expenses.
Spud may be able to enlighten us!
-
My mother's aunt married a man from Ghana, in the days when mixed race marriages were taboo. She had a little girl, Mum offered to take the baby for a walk in her pram, when Mum was a young teenager. Mum said it was awful as soon as people saw the baby was mixed race they were very rude, and one person even spat at the poor child! >:(
-
I've never worked out what lesbians do, exactly, and am now too old to care.
I think they don't do anything much except cuddle in bed and share the household expenses.
Spud may be able to enlighten us!
Do you remember that joke about gay marriage - finally, they get to have no sex and lots of rows, like the rest of us.
-
I can remember that attitude very well, floo. It was shameful, especially to treat kids in that way.
Mixed race people were called, "Half caste", and viewed with suspicion; folks seemed to notice that part of them before anything else! Horrible.
There was also 'shadism', ie not too bad if they weren't too dark ::).
How different things are now! When you think of all the mixed race people around, on TV for example, a lot of them really gorgeous looking. Makes me think people years ago may have been jealous ;D.
wiggi: like the joke - and it is so true!
-
As most know one of our adopted sons is of mixed race. There were many problems during the time he lived with us due to the appalling first nine years of his life in the care of a local authority whose lack of care system has been in the news in recent weeks! >:( However, as far as we were aware, there was never any racism aimed at him at his schools or in the local communities in which we lived in the 80s.
-
Things had improved by the 80s, floo, but there are some people who grew up earlier than that and were fortunate never to have experienced much in the way of racism. The London Labour MP, Diane Abbott, said she didn't when she was growing up, which is good to know.
-
"There is no point - these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars"
I see. I hadn't thought of that.
-
Gordon,
Regarding your point about religious organisations being exempt from same sex marriage, and this being a license for them to continue in what you perceive to be homophobia.
Do you know why this exemption was made? A link might be helpful - thanks.
-
Another question I have is, have you considered the fact that some people with same sex attraction are celibate or would like to walk away from homosexuality. Do you think a religious organisation which permits homosexuality would be an appropriate place for these people to receive the support they need?
-
Another question I have is, have you considered the fact that some people with same sex attraction are celibate or would like to walk away from homosexuality. Do you think a religious organisation which permits homosexuality would be an appropriate place for these people to receive the support they need?
What is wrong with homosexuality?
-
Gordon,
Regarding your point about religious organisations being exempt from same sex marriage, and this being a license for them to continue in what you perceive to be homophobia.
Do you know why this exemption was made? A link might be helpful - thanks.
It was part of the legislation in England & Wales (here in Scotland we have separate legislation, introduced later) whereby the C of E were forbidden to conduct SSM, thereby shamefully allowing them to maintain their discriminatory stance by exempting them from legislation by making it illegal for them to conduct SSM's.
http://tinyurl.com/zrq633k
-
Nothing!
However it would be wrong for Spud, who isn't a homosexual, to dip his toe (or anything else come to think of it), in homosexuality. I just wish he'd realise that what is wrong for him is right for others - a small minority at that so why worry?
He spends too much time thinking about it, imo.
-
Another question I have is, have you considered the fact that some people with same sex attraction are celibate or would like to walk away from homosexuality.
I'm sure there are, but that is a personal matter for them and no doubt there are a variety of options for people to discuss their situation with supportive others should they wish to do so.
Do you think a religious organisation which permits homosexuality would be an appropriate place for these people to receive the support they need?
No idea: it depends on the person and what other options are available to them. For someone who takes religion seriously I'd have thought that non-judgmental religious organisations could well be useful.
Don't forget, Spud, homosexual people may well be quite happy as they are - just like heterosexual people.
-
Nothing!
However it would be wrong for Spud, who isn't a homosexual, to dip his toe (or anything else come to think of it), in homosexuality. I just wish he'd realise that what is wrong for him is right for others - a small minority at that so why worry?
He spends too much time thinking about it, imo.
I suspect some people who are frequently dissing homosexuality are actually gays in denial.
-
I agree that is true for some of the more strident anti-gays.
-
There is no point - these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars.
That could be problematical, Gordon. No churches are registered as legal registrars.
Church of England (and possibly Church in Wales) clergy are trained as registrars as part of their training. From what I have been told by such folkk (including my father who was a CoE cleric when he was alive) that element of their training is longer and in more depth than any other registrar training. Clergy from other denominations and all laity can only become registrars by following that lower level of training - usually put on by local authorities.
-
That could be problematical, Gordon. No churches are registered as legal registrars.
I presumed you'd work out that I was referring to clergy: seems I was wrong.
Church of England (and possibly Church in Wales) clergy are trained as registrars as part of their training. From what I have been told by such folkk (including my father who was a CoE cleric when he was alive) that element of their training is longer and in more depth than any other registrar training. Clergy from other denominations and all laity can only become registrars by following that lower level of training - usually put on by local authorities.
Super: CofE clergy are no doubt the type of registrars Harrods would sell you.
That isn't the problem though: the problem is they've been allowed to discriminate as regards who they are prepared to provide the marriage service for, which is shameful. Still - must look on the bright side in that the institutional homophobia of the likes of the CofE confirms its growing irrelevance and hastens its demise as a socially relevant institution.
Fortunately many Christians aren't tarred with the same homophobic brush that afflicts the organisations some of them belong to.
-
Some CofE clergy do peform SSM, though.
In the distant past, there were quite a few who wouldn't marry anyone who had been divorced. Not all.
Those were the rules.
There will always be clergy prepared to thumb their noses at the hierarchy (I nearly said "Bishopric" but thought better of it). Pioneers I suppose.
I'd have thought, if someone really wants to marry in church, or be married by a member of the clergy, it wouldn't be difficult to find a place or person.
-
CofS ministers can't though. It's one of the fankles the Kirk manages to get itself into....marriage is between man and woman. Gay marriage is not permitted in the Kirk. Yet Ministers in a gay relationship are permitted (subject to approval by congregation, Kirk Session and Presbytery. It's a Kirk thing. Don't try to understand it - I've tried to fall asleep in too many Presbytery meetings to realise that some things are beyond our understanding.
-
Super: CofE clergy are no doubt the type of registrars Harrods would sell you.
I very much doubt it: too many CoE clergy are involved in working with the poor and needy for Harrods to be interested in them.
That isn't the problem though: the problem is they've been allowed to discriminate as regards who they are prepared to provide the marriage service for, which is shameful.
So, you are suggesting that they should be forced to be hypocrites, eh?
Still - must look on the bright side in that the institutional homophobia of the likes of the CofE confirms its growing irrelevance and hastens its demise as a socially relevant institution.
Interestingly, Gordon, stats suggest that it is that part of the CoE that you are grousing about - the evangelical wing - that is currently growing.
Fortunately many Christians aren't tarred with the same homophobic brush that afflicts the organisations some of them belong to.
And those you describe tend to belong to the sections of the Church that are becoming scarcer.
-
Some CofE clergy do peform SSM, though.
AS I've pointed out to Gordon, the majority of such clergy are associated with the higher Anglican groups, who stats suggest are the ones that are shrinking fastest.
-
I'm sure there are, but that is a personal matter for them and no doubt there are a variety of options for people to discuss their situation with supportive others should they wish to do so.
No idea: it depends on the person and what other options are available to them. For someone who takes religion seriously I'd have thought that non-judgmental religious organisations could well be useful.
Don't forget, Spud, homosexual people may well be quite happy as they are - just like heterosexual people.
I think what I'm getting at is that for these people (same sex attracted people who wish to abstain), acting on same sex attraction is a temptation. If they were members of churches where the doctrine was that it was ok to act on SSA, it would be like having an alcoholics anonymous meeting in a pub where people were drinking alcohol, or someone who is trying to give up smoking socializing with people who were smoking. While going through the withdrawal process they need an environment where the temptation is removed as much as possible, which builds them up to be able to resist in the outside world where they will experience temptation. So this seems like a good reason to allow certain organizations to exclude same sex relationships.
Regarding the link you gave on the legislation (thanks for that): it says that Canon law is part of Common law. Doesn't this imply that SSM is against already existing statutory law, since it is not permitted in Canon law? I googled the relationship between Canon and Common law but couldn't find anything to confirm or refute this.
-
I think what I'm getting at is that for these people (same sex attracted people who wish to abstain), acting on same sex attraction is a temptation.
Or they are acting quite reasonably and in line with their sexual orientation. I suspect you are lumbering under the misapprehension that homosexuality is akin to both 'wrongness' or some kind of disease: I think you need to do some more thinking on these aspects.
If they were members of churches where the doctrine was that it was ok to act on SSA, it would be like having an alcoholics anonymous meeting in a pub where people were drinking alcohol, or someone who is trying to give up smoking socializing with people who were smoking. While going through the withdrawal process they need an environment where the temptation is removed as much as possible, which builds them up to be able to resist in the outside world where they will experience temptation. So this seems like a good reason to allow certain organizations to exclude same sex relationships.
Nope: your summary here sounds like unpleasant and simplistic homophobia.
Regarding the link you gave on the legislation (thanks for that): it says that Canon law is part of Common law. Doesn't this imply that SSM is against already existing statutory law, since it is not permitted in Canon law? I googled the relationship between Canon and Common law but couldn't find anything to confirm or refute this.
Don't know, but I'd imagine 'Canon Law' invokes the internal rules of the C of E that may well have some roots in parliamentary legislation from historical times when organised religion did indeed have influence: those times are gone, thank goodness, and we now have legal SSM despite the C of E objections.
You'll need to check this out yourself - as you can imagine the 'Canon Law' of the C of E is irrelevant to an atheist Scot like me.
-
I was going to point that out, Gordon. The CofE canon law has no jurisdiction outside England. Nor shouldit (Mind you, no church should have jurisdiction outside the confines of its denomination in any case.)
-
(Mind you, no church should have jurisdiction outside the confines of its denomination in any case.)
I think that this is why many CoE members and clergy have been arguing for disestablishment for as long as I can remember. What I'm not quite sure about is the history behind the 'effective' disestablishment of both the Church of Wales (now known as the Church in Wales) and the Church of Scotland.
An interesting, albeit fairly simplistic explanation of the CinW from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_in_Wales#Disestablishment
-
AS I've pointed out to Gordon, the majority of such clergy are associated with the higher Anglican groups, who stats suggest are the ones that are shrinking fastest.
Yes you did say that and I didn't know they were shrinking fastest, nor that high Anglicans were more inclined to marry people of same sex, so I've learned something today.
Yet the rules are the same for all branches of the CofE. It's a question of whether or not an individual clergyperson is prepared to break a rule and how their parish/congregation feel about it.
I've heard of what some people call "Middle of the road" Anglican clergy performing SSM.
In days gone by, some of the high Anglicans were against women priests, had an organisation called "Forward in Faith". Not all of course, but quite a few. I am not up to date with all that and don't know if the org. still exists. I will google them forthwith and find out.
Certainly quite a lot of high Anglican priests are gay men but I am not sure that would influence them to marry people in church. A blessing maybe.
It's a shame if they are a dying breed (not the bigoted ones), because traditionally they did sterling work amongst the poor and were a beacon of light in underprivileged areas. They added some beauty to otherwise drab existences and parishioners of all shades of opinion found the church to be a centre of community.
Times change though.
-
In days gone by, some of the high Anglicans were against women priests, had an organisation called "Forward in Faith". Not all of course, but quite a few. I am not up to date with all that and don't know if the org. still exists. I will google them forthwith and find out.
Whether that particular grouping still exists, I'm not sure, but there are still groupings with the same aims.
It's a shame if they are a dying breed (not the bigoted ones), because traditionally they did sterling work amongst the poor and were a beacon of light in underprivileged areas. They added some beauty to otherwise drab existences and parishioners of all shades of opinion found the church to be a centre of community.
Times change though.
Ironically, historically, evangelicals have also been heavily involved in caring for the down-trodden and disenfranchised. Think of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury - and the Slavery bill. Nowadays, an increasing number of evangelical churches run homelessness projects, debt and budgetting advice programmes, rehab projects, etc. Unfortunately, as with society at large, there are still those who feel that their most important work is looking after number 1.
-
Well it isn't a competition, Hope, and all branches of the faith are involved in helping others. I was merely stating that the High Anglicans were particularly known for it at one time in deprived areas, but that doesn't detract from others.
Indeed, the Quakers have always been at the forefront when it comes to putting themselves on the line wherever a need is perceived, the Salvation Army of course and we mustn't forget non-Christian groups - Sikhs for example.
(PS: Found the 'Forward in Faith' website and it seems they are still going strong, you just don't hear about them so much nowadays. They have made a statement about marriage, which is quite conservative.
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/aboutus.php )
-
Well it isn't a competition, Hope, and all branches of the faith are involved in helping others. I was merely stating that the High Anglicans were particularly known for it at one time in deprived areas, but that doesn't detract from others.
I agree, but there are many who seem to think that High Anglicans concentrate on social action, whilst evangelicals concentrate on 'spiritual' action. Ironically, the SCM (Student Christian Mission) which promoted the socialside of the gospel amongst the Anglo-Catholics and High Anglicans in the early 20th century was only set up in the late 19th century - dedicated to overseas missionary action initially.
http://www.movement.org.uk/about-us/history - makes an interesting read. Note its relationship to the NUS!!
-
I didn't think that, Hope.
The history of the various branches of Christendom is very interesting. Still, we live in the here and now.
-
Nope: your summary here sounds like unpleasant and simplistic homophobia
Going back to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", I think that this is not necessary, the reason being that whatever one's orientation, sexual activity is not necessary for an individual's survival, and therefore it is not wrong to form a judgment on the morality of homosexual activity. Churches are therefore at liberty to refrain from marrying same-sex couples; it is right that they continue to act as legal registrars, however, because heterosexual marriage is the foundation of human survival as a whole.
-
Whether that particular grouping still exists, I'm not sure, but there are still groupings with the same aims.
Undoubtedly - the Coalition for Marriage still exists, even though equal marriage is a done deal.
Clearly, some people have difficulty coping with reality and with the fact that history and society have moved on greatly for the better and rendered their toxic and ugly little cliques irrelevant.
-
Going back to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", I think that this is not necessary, the reason being that whatever one's orientation, sexual activity is not necessary for an individual's survival, and therefore it is not wrong to form a judgment on the morality of homosexual activity. Churches are therefore at liberty to refrain from marrying same-sex couples; it is right that they continue to act as legal registrars, however, because heterosexual marriage is the foundation of human survival as a whole.
Spud - this is about equality and not about survival, where the latter is a daft concern anyway given the incidence of heterosexuality vs homosexuality.
-
AS I've pointed out to Gordon, the majority of such clergy are associated with the higher Anglican groups, who stats suggest are the ones that are shrinking fastest.
'Higher', Anglican groups?
ippy
-
It's the incense wot does it, ippy.
-
Spud - this is about equality and not about survival, where the latter is a daft concern anyway given the incidence of heterosexuality vs homosexuality.
I accept the principle that discrimination or abuse should not be tolerated,
but how do we bring about equality for some without denying it to others and exchanging one form of discrimination for another?
Suppose the players in a rugby team are compelled to wear Stonewall ribbons during a match. (Bear in mind that Stonewall not only stands against discrimination and abuse but also stands for acceptance of the gay lifestyle). There might be one player who has experienced homosexuality but walked away from it. Should he be dropped from the team for refusing to wear the ribbon?
Or suppose a teacher who has walked away from homosexuality refuses to teach that the gay lifestyle is acceptable. Should that teacher lose his job?
And should heterosexual people who refuse to promote the gay lifestyle also be discriminated against?
-
It's the incense wot does it, ippy.
Perhaps not enough deodorant?
ippy
-
It's the incense wot does it, ippy.
Hardly. How do you account for Orthodoxy or traditional Catholicism?
-
I accept the principle that discrimination or abuse should not be tolerated,
Good - well done.
but how do we bring about equality for some without denying it to others and exchanging one form of discrimination for another?
By looking at various aspects of society and identifying where there are forms of discrimination that sees some disadvantaged compared to others on the basis of a characteristic where a reasoned basis to maintain the discrimination cannot be convincingly demonstrated and where social attitudes have changed in support of removing the discrimination: for example, apartheid or restrictions on legal marriage.
Some may disagree on a personal basis but their preferences may be deemed to be less relevant than addressing the inequality on a society-wide basis, hence SSM is now legal where we both live, and especially where objections are based on fallacious arguments from authority where, ironically, what opponents regard as being authoritative (in this case 'scripture') isn't binding on the rest of us and, moreover, where entering into a SSM is easily avoided by those who do object to it.
Suppose the players in a rugby team are compelled to wear Stonewall ribbons during a match. (Bear in mind that Stonewall not only stands against discrimination and abuse but also stands for acceptance of the gay lifestyle). There might be one player who has experienced homosexuality but walked away from it. Should he be dropped from the team for refusing to wear the ribbon?
I realise that this is a thought experiment, but it does seem an unrealistic one bearing in mind the current problems football has with abuse and also the efforts being made to counter homophobia within the game - clearly football has its problems to solve - but I'd imagine that a player not buying into the ethos of their club is effectively dropping themselves.
Or suppose a teacher who has walked away from homosexuality refuses to teach that the gay lifestyle is acceptable. Should that teacher lose his job?
I think you might be using the term 'acceptable' wrongly: being homosexual is clearly 'acceptable' bearing in mind that it has been decriminalised (for consenting adults) and since homosexual people can now marry each other in many legislatures to the extent it is legally no different to heterosexual marriage. The personal background of the teacher isn't a factor here, since their fitness to teach 'modern & social studies' is a professional matter for them and their employer.
The key point is whether or not the syllabus to be taught involves recognising that homosexual relationships are an aspect of society-at-large, and since this is the case then teachers can do no other if the issue is contained in the syllabus that prescribes what is to be taught. However, in doing so they aren't promoting homosexuality any more than they are promoting a particular political party by discussing the various political philosophies that young people will encounter as an aspect of society-at-large.
I suspect you are conflating education about homosexuality being an aspect of society with the promotion of homosexuality - where the latter would rightly see teachers sacked.
And should heterosexual people who refuse to promote the gay lifestyle also be discriminated against?
Who is doing or advocating this?
All you are being asked to do, Spud, is not discriminate on the basis of the sexual orientation of another people: you aren't being required to approve, and your personal disapproval is your problem.
-
Some may disagree on a personal basis but their preferences may be deemed to be less relevant than addressing the inequality on a society-wide basis, hence SSM is now legal where we both live, and especially where objections are based on fallacious arguments from authority where, ironically, what opponents regard as being authoritative (in this case 'scripture') isn't binding on the rest of us and, moreover, where entering into a SSM is easily avoided by those who do object to it.
What about those for whom 'authority' has absolutely nothing to do religion? I suppose you prefer to ignore them.
-
What about those for whom 'authority' has absolutely nothing to do religion? I suppose you prefer to ignore them.
What does that statement mean?
-
What about those for whom 'authority' has absolutely nothing to do religion? I suppose you prefer to ignore them.
Nope - there are non-religious authorities I must comply with: legislation being the obvious example. 'Scripture' isn't binding unless it is legislative and affects society in general, such as in a theocracy, so here in the UK it isn't authoritative and is easily ignored on a personal basis.
-
Nope - there are non-religious authorities I must comply with: legislation being the obvious example. 'Scripture' isn't binding unless it is legislative and affects society in general, such as in a theocracy, so here in the UK it isn't authoritative and is easily ignored on a personal basis.
You are so funny, Gordon. You have chosen to misrepresent the use of 'authority' - as if legislative authority is the only one that exists - despite the fact that you regularly refer to scientific and religious 'authority' in your various posts.
-
What does that statement mean?
Science is often referred to as an 'authority' by many on this board.
-
Science is often referred to as an 'authority' by many on this board.
What does the authority of science (which really only means entirely justified confidence in its methods, its practitioners and its track record of results) have to do with marriage equality?
-
Science is often referred to as an 'authority' by many on this board.
Well it has a lot more authority than religion that is for sure. It can be tested to see if it has evidence to support it, which you can't do with religion.
-
Nope - there are non-religious authorities I must comply with: legislation being the obvious example. 'Scripture' isn't binding unless it is legislative and affects society in general, such as in a theocracy, so here in the UK it isn't authoritative and is easily ignored on a personal basis.
Easily ignored most of the time, but it can be a close-run thing even in secular England. It was only three, four years ago that the votaries of the established church - who have their fingers in the pie of governance by right, not by merit - were trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, even though the proposed legislation was purely and entirely about civil and therefore wholly secular marriage and thus had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them.
-
You are so funny, Gordon. You have chosen to misrepresent the use of 'authority' - as if legislative authority is the only one that exists - despite the fact that you regularly refer to scientific and religious 'authority' in your various posts.
Then you are easily amused.
I never claimed legislative authority was the only form of authority, so your comment is a straw man, and I even didn't mention science.
-
Easily ignored most of the time, but it can be a close-run thing even in secular England. It was only three, four years ago that the votaries of the established church were trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, even though the proposed legislation was purely and entirely about civil and therefore wholly secular marriage and thus had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them.
Sorry, Shakes, but as far back as 2000, the EU wanted to make it all about the church/faith-based groups. It took 2 years of lobbying to get the Commissioner concerned to change the wording of the relevant Direction, and to do away with the blanket requirement that all posts were open to all people - such that potentially an atheist could apply for a post as a pastor/imam/priest/... . It also meant that certain posts are now 'reserved'.
-
Sorry, Shakes, but as far back as 2000, the EU wanted to make it all about the church/faith-based groups. It took 2 years of lobbying to get the Commissioner concerned to change the wording of the relevant Direction, and to do away with the blanket requirement that all posts were open to all people - such that potentially an atheist could apply for a post as a pastor/imam/priest/... . It also meant that certain posts are now 'reserved'.
I'm sure that was interesting to you when you wrote it, but what's the relevance to what I wrote in #207?
-
I'm sure that was interesting to you when you wrote it, but what's the relevance to what I wrote in #207?
in #207 you wrote: ... even though the proposed legislation was purely and entirely about civil and therefore wholly secular marriage and thus had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them.
The proposed legislation was not 'purely and entirely about civil and therefoire wholly secular marriage'; it was originally all-inclusive, and would have required ministers/priests/imams from churches, mosques, temples, etc to perform SSM. There was a sizeable campaign that fought to have this all-inclusiveness removed - in the same way as there as a big campaign back in the early 2000s to have the blanket conditions of theproposed EU Equality Directive amended.
I'm saorry that I didn't make this link originally
-
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for your post in #199. I accept your view that (from page 1) "that social policy should [not] reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives."
I was reading back on page one where Anchorman agreed with you that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on non Christians. You said this,
I'll confess to being utterly appalled at the stance of some elements within organised Christianity towards SSM, where the legal ring-fencing of the CofE to allow then to continue to discriminate against homosexual people was especially sickening.
and I can't see any response from Jim to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", as you said in a post to me.
I see he wrote, "The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith."
The Church could, in theory, maintain its stance on marriage if its ministers were not permitted to act as legal registrars. But the problem with not permitting them to act as legal registrars might be that so many people would object that we would find that actually, there is a democratic mandate to allow them to do so, while adhering to scriptural teaching.
I wonder if Jim would agree or has anything to add, if he is reading this?
-
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for your post in #199. I accept your view that (from page 1) "that social policy should [not] reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives."
I was reading back on page one where Anchorman agreed with you that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on non Christians. You said this,
and I can't see any response from Jim to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", as you said in a post to me.
I see he wrote, "The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith."
The Church could, in theory, maintain its stance on marriage if its ministers were not permitted to act as legal registrars. But the problem with not permitting them to act as legal registrars might be that so many people would object that we would find that actually, there is a democratic mandate to allow them to do so, while adhering to scriptural teaching.
I wonder if Jim would agree or has anything to add, if he is reading this?
A lot of Christians don't have a problem with gay marriage, it is the more extreme ones who do.
-
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for your post in #199. I accept your view that (from page 1) "that social policy should [not] reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives."
I was reading back on page one where Anchorman agreed with you that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on non Christians. You said this,
and I can't see any response from Jim to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", as you said in a post to me.
I see he wrote, "The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith."
I think Jim is agreeing here that SSM should not be legally proscribed on a society-wide basis due to religious objections.
The Church could, in theory, maintain its stance on marriage if its ministers were not permitted to act as legal registrars. But the problem with not permitting them to act as legal registrars might be that so many people would object that we would find that actually, there is a democratic mandate to allow them to do so, while adhering to scriptural teaching.
If religious organisations, by dint of their clerics being registrars, seek to maintain active discrimination in respect of a legal entitlement then I say that is unacceptable, as is whatever ancient 'scripture' they cite as being their authority.
If religious organisations are in the marriage business, where it's clerics act as registrars, then they should provide the registrar aspect of the services on an equitable basis to all who request it and are legally entitled to marry. If they can't do that, or they are ring-fenced to keep progress out (such as the C of E under England and Wales legal arrangements), then in my view they are acting shamefully and they should disqualify themselves as registrars.
-
If religious organisations are in the marriage business, where it's clerics act as registrars, then they should provide the registrar aspect of the services on an equitable basis to all who request it and are legally entitled to marry. If they can't do that, or they are ring-fenced to keep progress out (such as the C of E under England and Wales legal arrangements), then in my view they are acting shamefully and they should disqualify themselves as registrars.
Presumably you would say the same about clergy who do not allow divorcees to marry in their church?
-
Presumably you would say the same about clergy who do not allow divorcees to marry in their church?
Yep.
You seem to be struggling with the idea that if people are legally allowed to marry then those empowered to conduct the legal requirements of marriage should do so equitably. If organisations, via their suitably qualified staff, can't do so then they, as they say, should consider their position and either get out of the legal marriage business or stop discriminating.
-
Presumably you would say the same about clergy who do not allow divorcees to marry in their church?
There is nothing wrong with getting a divorce if your marriage has irretrievably broken down, it is stupid to stay together if that is the case. So why shouldn't people be able to remarry in a church?
-
Presumably you would say the same about clergy who do not allow divorcees to marry in their church?
Not sure that there are any clergy who wouldn't 'allow divorcees to marry in their church', Spud. That ban, which held for many years, fell by the way side years ago. In fact, our last two pastors were both divorced, though not as a result of anything they had done.
-
Hi Hope, I am sure what you say is true, in that many churches permit divorcees to marry. But I am in the South East, where I know several churches which do not allow it, including mine. That doesn't mean these churches are better, but they believe that since the new testament teaches that remarriage can cause one party to become an adulterer, it is better to avoid being responsible for that happening. They will sometimes allow a service of blessing if they know that the divorced partner is the one who was wronged.
Also I think the Catholic church will not allow it?
-
The point is it is legal for a minister to refuse to conduct remarriages, so there is discrimination which is based on scriptural teaching, which, as shown above, is about how to do the wisest thing in not being responsible for someone doing something that is against God's will.
-
You seem to be struggling with the idea that if people are legally allowed to marry then those empowered to conduct the legal requirements of marriage should do so equitably. If organisations, via their suitably qualified staff, can't do so then they, as they say, should consider their position and either get out of the legal marriage business or stop discriminating.
Whilst you seem to be struggling with the idea that some services that existed before they became legal/government services could be seen as something over and above just a legal event. Incidentally, Anglican clergy are trained as registrars as part of their ordination training and aren't beholden to the state in the same way that other registrars are - since they provide a service that goes beyond just the civil.
-
The point is it is legal for a minister to refuse to conduct remarriages, so there is discrimination which is based on scriptural teaching, which, as shown above, is about how to do the wisest thing in not being responsible for someone doing something that is against God's will.
As far as I'm aware, the ruling that used to apply no longer does as the scriptural teaching that was used as the basis for said discrimination was shown to have been interpreted incorrectly, and by a theologian, not some secular expert.
Remember that divorce was actually a Biblical provision created to protect the woman.
-
Hi Gordon, Thanks for your post in #199. I accept your view that (from page 1) "that social policy should [not] reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives." I was reading back on page one where Anchorman agreed with you that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on non Christians. You said this, and I can't see any response from Jim to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", as you said in a post to me. I see he wrote, "The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith." The Church could, in theory, maintain its stance on marriage if its ministers were not permitted to act as legal registrars. But the problem with not permitting them to act as legal registrars might be that so many people would object that we would find that actually, there is a democratic mandate to allow them to do so, while adhering to scriptural teaching. I wonder if Jim would agree or has anything to add, if he is reading this?
From a CofS POV, ministers are registrars 'with restriction'. The Kirk insists that any marriage they perform must be a Christian one - should it be found that they conduct a secular, non-Christian marriage, whether same sex or otherwise, they can be removed from ministry. The registrar role is one of convenience and economy: it simply means that the cost of a marriage may be lessened - ministers do not charge for the service (Though they may be given a gratuity at the whim of those paying for it), wheras the registrar's fee, like that of a marriage celebrant, is usually set.
-
The point is it is legal for a minister to refuse to conduct remarriages, so there is discrimination which is based on scriptural teaching, which, as shown above, is about how to do the wisest thing in not being responsible for someone doing something that is against God's will.
Yep. A minister/pastor cannot be forced into conducting a marriage against his conscience.
-
Yep. A minister/pastor cannot be forced into conducting a marriage against his conscience.
That is certainly true - but there is no longer a ban, as such.
-
There never was - under Scots law. Marital law was always separate in Scotland and England under the 1707 Act of Union.
-
There never was - under Scots law. Marital law was always separate in Scotland and England under the 1707 Act of Union.
Thanks for that, Jim. I suppose that the CofE's ban was a hang-over from the RCC position.
-
Thanks for that, Jim. I suppose that the CofE's ban was a hang-over from the RCC position.
Yep.
Remember the to's and fro's of the Tudors passed Scotland by. The RC Church was outlawed in 1567 and remained so till the nineteenth century.
-
Yep.
You seem to be struggling with the idea that if people are legally allowed to marry then those empowered to conduct the legal requirements of marriage should do so equitably. If organisations, via their suitably qualified staff, can't do so then they, as they say, should consider their position and either get out of the legal marriage business or stop discriminating.
I heard yesterday that in Hungary, only civil marriages are legally valid (though they do not have same sex marriage). Religious ceremonies where the couple repeat their vows before God have to be conducted separately.
There could be another problem if religious organisations do what you have suggested. They will face the same problem when they conduct non-legal ceremonies, because they will find it necessary to discriminate against same sex couples in these ceremonies as well.
-
I heard yesterday that in Hungary, only civil marriages are legally valid (though they do not have same sex marriage). Religious ceremonies where the couple repeat their vows before God have to be conducted separately.
So it can be done.
There could be another problem if religious organisations do what you have suggested. They will face the same problem when they conduct non-legal ceremonies, because they will find it necessary to discriminate against same sex couples in these ceremonies as well.
True, but at least the legal entitlement to marriage is then being applied without discrimination in all cases.
Should religious organisations still decide to discriminate in their post-marriage ceremonies then that would still be shameful and, ironically, since the legal aspects are now separate, they would be discriminating against some of their fellow Christians on a solely religious basis: hard to see how any sense can be made of such a position, which seems also to imply a 'no true Scotsman'.
-
So it can be done.
True, but at least the legal entitlement to marriage is then being applied without discrimination in all cases.
Should religious organisations still decide to discriminate in their post-marriage ceremonies then that would still be shameful and, ironically, since the legal aspects are now separate, they would be discriminating against some of their fellow Christians on a solely religious basis: hard to see how any sense can be made of such a position, which seems also to imply a 'no true Scotsman'.
I understand how you would feel that way. But the Bible is quite clear and unambiguous that sexual relationships - and by implication marriage - between people of the same sex, is against God's will. There would thus be no sense in them saying vows before God.
I mentioned it because I could foresee similar situations to the B&B owners or the bakers from N. Ireland occurring, where same sex couples might take a church to court because they felt discriminated against; so i wondered what you thought about that.
-
I understand how you would feel that way. But the Bible is quite clear and unambiguous that sexual relationships - and by implication marriage - between people of the same sex, is against God's will.
Other opinions are available.
-
I understand how you would feel that way. But the Bible is quite clear and unambiguous that sexual relationships - and by implication marriage - between people of the same sex, is against God's will. There would thus be no sense in them saying vows before God.
As you'd no doubt imagine, Spud, I regard ancient claims about 'God's will' with utter disdain when these claims are used to discriminate against homosexual people in the 21st century.
I mentioned it because I could foresee similar situations to the B&B owners or the bakers from N. Ireland occurring, so i wondered what you thought about that.
I think bakers should concentrate on baking stuff, and in that context they should keep their non-bakery opinions to themselves.
-
Other bakers were available, G...
-
Other bakers were available, G...
No doubt: the issue here though is about bakers who discriminate.
-
No doubt: the issue here though is about bakers who discriminate.
But its also about a company's right not to serve someone.
-
But its also about a company's right not to serve someone.
That depends on the grounds they cite for refusing to provide their service.
-
As you'd no doubt imagine, Spud, I regard ancient claims about 'God's will' with utter disdain when these claims are used to discriminate against homosexual people in the 21st century.
And I regard society's claim to be developed and caring with similar utter disdain when it spends so much time pandering to the wants of minorities whilst ignoring the needs of the majority, Gordon - and before you jump in with the obvious, I'd include the attitude it takes to the church in the former. The church can stand on its own two feet without the state intervening as it does.
I think bakers should concentrate on baking stuff, and in that context they should keep their non-bakery opinions to themselves.
Unfortunately, it is hard to divorce the one from the other because we are dealing with humans, not robots.
-
That depends on the grounds they cite for refusing to provide their service.
No, a shopkeeper or restauranteur can refuse to serve anyone, without giving cause.
-
No, a shopkeeper or restauranteur can refuse to serve anyone, without giving cause.
They did give cause though, by citing their objections to the requested icing: so they were discriminating, which is unreasonable.
This is very different from declining the request by, for instance, noting that they were unable to provide the order due to having inadequate business capacity to meet it on schedule due to the volume of preexisting orders, which is perfectly reasonable and non-discriminatory.
-
And I regard society's claim to be developed and caring with similar utter disdain when it spends so much time pandering to the wants of minorities whilst ignoring the needs of the majority, Gordon - and before you jump in with the obvious, I'd include the attitude it takes to the church in the former. The church can stand on its own two feet without the state intervening as it does.
The particular issue Spud and I were discussing is the discrimination inherent in the 'church' with regard to homosexual people. In case you hadn't noticed the bit of society that you so disdain, and within which we both live, has removed discrimination surrounding legal marriage: it seems that any residual discrimination in respect of SSM is now mainly the perogative of the godly, and no amount of railing against society in general can mask that.
-
And I regard society's claim to be developed and caring with similar utter disdain when it spends so much time pandering to the wants of minorities whilst ignoring the needs of the majority, Gordon
What were the "needs of the majority" with regard to marriage equality and gay rights in general, exactly? Given that a majority were and are in favour of both, I mean.
Does your disdain for the "wants of minorities" extends to minorities such as, say, ethnic minorities, the disabled, the elderly etc.?
Or is it just the queers again?
The church can stand on its own two feet without the state intervening as it does.
When can we expect the church to keep its beak out of the state, then? For example, no bishops of the established church (no established church, come to that) in the House of Lords trying to block legislation which (a) has majority public support and (b) was absolutely none of its damned business anyway. That would be a fair deal, wouldn't it?
Unfortunately, it is hard to divorce the one from the other because we are dealing with humans twats, not robots.
Fixed that one for you.
-
As you'd no doubt imagine, Spud, I regard ancient claims about 'God's will' with utter disdain when these claims are used to discriminate against homosexual people in the 21st century.
Again, I totally understand. None of us like being told what we aren't allowed to do, as my sister pointed out when I spoke to her about this. Like a parent setting boundaries for children, God actually has our best interests at heart. The thing is that Christ actually offers to fill the gap left when someone gives up a particular form of sin. It can be through things like prayer or friendship. This is why the 'discrimination' you find unacceptable is actually not so. Unfortunately someone who doesn't know God finds it difficult to believe that it can work, but there are Christians with SSA who obey God and, despite struggles, find happiness in life. They can vouch for what I've said.
-
Again, I totally understand. None of us like being told what we aren't allowed to do, as my sister pointed out when I spoke to her about this. Like a parent setting boundaries for children, God actually has our best interests at heart. The thing is that Christ actually offers to fill the gap left when someone gives up a particular form of sin. It can be through things like prayer or friendship. This is why the 'discrimination' you find unacceptable is actually not so. Unfortunately someone who doesn't know God finds it difficult to believe that it can work, but there are Christians with SSA who obey God and, despite struggles, find happiness in life. They can vouch for what I've said.
Christians who are homosexual can manage their sexuality in whatever way suits (with the consenting adults caveat); that is surely a personal matter for them and I doubt many of us have a problem with that. Christianity, however, isn't the arbiter of legal marriage and neither is 'scripture' binding on society at large.
That organised Christianity does have a role in legal marriage but in enacting this role they seek to discriminate against just some of those who are entitled to legally marry is, in my view, a problem. That they get away with doing so at all is an anachronism in this day and age.
-
No, a shopkeeper or restauranteur can refuse to serve anyone, without giving cause.
...provided that it is not done on the grounds of race, sex, religion etc!!!
-
...provided that it is not done on the grounds of race, sex, religion etc!!!
But they aren't required to give a reason. Legally, they can simply refuse to serve you.
-
Christians who are homosexual can manage their sexuality in whatever way suits (with the consenting adults caveat); that is surely a personal matter for them and I doubt many of us have a problem with that. Christianity, however, isn't the arbiter of legal marriage and neither is 'scripture' binding on society at large.
But neither is society the sole arbiter of legal marriage: there has to be a conscience clause in life - otherwise, we would not allow conscientious objectors. Furthermore, we would never had the likes of Wilberforce or Tatchell, Elizabeth Fry or Nelson Mandela.
That organised Christianity does have a role in legal marriage but in enacting this role they seek to discriminate against just some of those who are entitled to legally marry is, in my view, a problem. That they get away with doing so at all is an anachronism in this day and age.
And what would that anachronism be, Gordon? That there are some alive today who don't agree with the direction that society is going in? That's by no means new, nor will it ever be the case that such people don't exist.
-
But neither is society the sole arbiter of legal marriage: there has to be a conscience clause in life - otherwise, we would not allow conscientious objectors.
In terms of legislation surrounding marriage it is the political governance arrangements that do the arbitrating and like it or not they legislated to implement SSM. You can of course object but that doesn't extend to discriminating in relation to providing marriage services: the honourable course would be for clergy who can't in conscience meet their marriage registration role in full to relinquish this role.
Furthermore, we would never had the likes of Wilberforce or Tatchell, Elizabeth Fry or Nelson Mandela.
Nobody is suggesting there is no place for objections being articulated on any matter as part of the governance process. I'd suggest the more recent pair would probably be in favour of removing discrimination against homosexual people.
And what would that anachronism be, Gordon? That there are some alive today who don't agree with the direction that society is going in? That's by no means new, nor will it ever be the case that such people don't exist.
There are Luddites everywhere of course, and some seem to think that ancient middle-eastern religious books are relevant to progressive modern social legislation: and based on their stance on this issue I'd say anachronistic was an apt description.
-
But they aren't required to give a reason. Legally, they can simply refuse to serve you.
And if they do so for the reasons given, they will have broken the law.
-
Or is it just the queers again?
Jut about covers it Shaker.
I do find this relentless, mindless, mildly irritating queer bashing wearisome.
Do people really not have bigger things to worry about other than the fact that two people in love can get married regardless of their gender.
It is a point I have made many times before but its almost like they enjoy flaunting their heterosexual superiority to one and all.
Must have sad, small, meaningless lives is all I can think.
-
Jut about covers it Shaker.
I do find this relentless, mindless, mildly irritating queer bashing wearisome.
Do people really not have bigger things to worry about other than the fact that two people in love can get married regardless of their gender.
It is a point I have made many times before but its almost like they enjoy flaunting their heterosexual superiority to one and all.
Must have sad, small, meaningless lives is all I can think.
As I have said a few times before, I wonder how Christian anti-gay bigots would react if they discovered Jesus had been gay and in a sexual relationship with the disciple whom he loved?
-
As I have said a few times before, I wonder how Christian anti-gay bigots would react if they discovered Jesus had been gay and in a sexual relationship with the disciple whom he loved?
Floo, the flaming lid would come off,
and what immense fun we could enjoy watching the ensuing carnage. Brilliant.
-
Christians who are homosexual can manage their sexuality in whatever way suits (with the consenting adults caveat); that is surely a personal matter for them and I doubt many of us have a problem with that. Christianity, however, isn't the arbiter of legal marriage and neither is 'scripture' binding on society at large.
That organised Christianity does have a role in legal marriage but in enacting this role they seek to discriminate against just some of those who are entitled to legally marry is, in my view, a problem. That they get away with doing so at all is an anachronism in this day and age.
Substitute 'have to discriminate' for 'seek to discriminate' and you shouldn't have a problem. That's why the government was able to exempt religious organizations from ssm, surely?
-
Substitute 'have to discriminate' for 'seek to discriminate' and you shouldn't have a problem. That's why the government was able to exempt religious organizations from ssm, surely?
so because ISIS think they have to kill homosexuals, they should be allowed to?
-
Substitute 'have to discriminate' for 'seek to discriminate' and you shouldn't have a problem.
Yet I still do: the difference in these terms doesn't change the intent, which is to effect a means to discriminate. Whether these Christian organisations feel they 'have' to discriminate, or would 'seek' to, surely means they intend to exclude a subset of those entitled to legally marry from using their services on the basis of sexual orientation.
No matter how you try to wriggle, Spud, to pretend the stance of these organisations/clerics isn't discriminatory is head in the sand stuff.
That's why the government was able to exempt religious organizations from ssm, surely?
I suspect that the shameful ring-fencing of the CofE is politics pure and simple given the privileged status of the CofE: after all we can't have the Queen signing-off progressive legislation that contradicts the same religious organisation she is linked to. Clearly our lords and masters think giving the CofE a free pass to discriminate is fine in these circumstance - it would be funny if it wasn't shameful!
-
I think the point is that a person, for example a priest, should be allowed to continue to do good (eg marry heterosexual couples) but because of the principle of freedom of conscience, be allowed to abstain from what he believes is wrong, eg marry homosexuals.
-
I think the point is that a person, for example a priest, should be allowed to continue to do good (eg marry heterosexual couples) but because of the principle of freedom of conscience, be allowed to abstain from what he believes is wrong, eg marry homosexuals.
And ISIS thinks killing homosexuals is a good thing, so you seem to think they should be allowed to do it.
-
I think the point is that a person, for example a priest, should be allowed to continue to do good (eg marry heterosexual couples) but because of the principle of freedom of conscience, be allowed to abstain from what he believes is wrong, eg marry homosexuals.
Super - then I think it wrong that I should pay income tax: would that be o.k provided I agree to abide by the speed limits when driving/motorcycling?
-
Super - then I think it wrong that I should pay income tax: would that be o.k provided I agree to abide by the speed limits when driving/motorcycling?
Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.
And ISIS thinks killing homosexuals is a good thing, so you seem to think they should be allowed to do it.
No because that would harm them and deny them the right to change their behaviour.
Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.
There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.
-
Good grief, Spud, do you realize how omnipotent you sound? 'There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex' - says who? I suppose this is the traditional arrogance of various churches, that we speak the truth, and everyone else should obey. Fortunately, those days have gone.
-
Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.
No because that would harm them and deny them the right to change their behaviour.
Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.
There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.
So it isn't about conscience at all. It"s about conforming to your standards and your standards alone. The entire conscience arguments that you have put forward, you have just declared worthless. Thank you for shooting down your own position.
-
Spud, just while we are at it, you do know that marriage isn't a sex licence?
-
Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.
No because that would harm them and deny them the right to change their behaviour.
Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.
There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.
Of all the crazy statements I have ever heard, that must be one of the craziest ones! :o
-
Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.
No because that would harm them and deny them the right to change their behaviour.
Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.
There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.
Spud,
you have some very QUEER ideas if I may say so?
-
Super - then I think it wrong that I should pay income tax: would that be o.k provided I agree to abide by the speed limits when driving/motorcycling?
The problem with that suggestion is that your income tax goes to help pay for services that you use on a daily basis. If you're happy not to have your rubbish collected on a regular basis, because the council tax doesn't cover all the costs; if you're happy that you pay for your health care, your children's education, maintenance of the roads, the defence of your family in the case of war, ... directly out of your own pocket.
-
Spud, just while we are at it, you do know that marriage isn't a sex licence?
Well, one can argue that it 1) is and 2) should be. Arguably a religious marriage exists partly based on that idea.
-
Well, one can argue that it 1) is and 2) should be. Arguably a religious marriage exists partly based on that idea.
Hope
in the distant past when humans numbered only in the low thousands , in the glorious days before minds were corrupted by religion, do you think male and female looked for another human to marry them before rutting in a cave somewhere. If so ,you would not be here to pass judgment.
-
Well, one can argue that it 1) is and 2) should be. Arguably a religious marriage exists partly based on that idea.
you would be wrong on 1, and we are talking about state marriage.
-
Not unless you are a charity. You shouldn't expect someone else to pay for your bin bag collection, etc unless you can't afford it - you are required to abide by speed limits to prevent harm being done to yourself or others.
...and we support SSM since it removed prejudice and discrimination.
Heterosexuals can be married on the assumption that they will use sex safely and properly, for the purpose it is meant for.
People marry because they love each other, Spud: and 'love' isn't a synonym for 'sex'.
There is no proper way for a same sex couple to have sex, and there is more temptation to use unsafe ways; therefore there is no mandate to legitimize it.
This is a fallacious argument from authority, Spud, with the added oddity that you seem to think your position is authoritative: you need to accept Spud that both legislation (in the parts of the UK we both live in) and common decency have left you behind.
-
The problem with that suggestion is that your income tax goes to help pay for services that you use on a daily basis. If you're happy not to have your rubbish collected on a regular basis, because the council tax doesn't cover all the costs; if you're happy that you pay for your health care, your children's education, maintenance of the roads, the defence of your family in the case of war, ... directly out of your own pocket.
Don't be silly - I'd have thought you'd have realised, had you read the post from Spud I was replying to (which I quoted in #258), that I was obviously being sarcastic.
Your concrete thinking does seem boundless.
-
The problem with that suggestion is that your income tax goes to help pay for services that you use on a daily basis. If you're happy not to have your rubbish collected on a regular basis, because the council tax doesn't cover all the costs; if you're happy that you pay for your health care, your children's education, maintenance of the roads, the defence of your family in the case of war, ... directly out of your own pocket.
whoosh
-
whoosh
I've decided to give Hope a bit of leeway from now on, there is something in his posts I recognise.
not sure if I should have said that but it was meant with concern.
-
So it isn't about conscience at all. It"s about conforming to your standards and your standards alone. The entire conscience arguments that you have put forward, you have just declared worthless. Thank you for shooting down your own position.
So supposing the right thing is for clergy to opt out of state marriage. What about other situations such as when someone in a same sex marriage applies for a position as a minister? How could the church avoid discriminating (by refusing to employ them) without opting out of employing people as ministers altogether?
-
How could the church avoid discriminating (by refusing to employ them) without opting out of employing people as ministers altogether?
Easy peasy: just stop the homophobic discrimination and these problems will go away.
-
But the person would be contradicting the teaching of his scripture.
-
The Bible would have to be re-written or banned
-
So supposing the right thing is for clergy to opt out of state marriage. What about other situations such as when someone in a same sex marriage applies for a position as a minister? How could the church avoid discriminating (by refusing to employ them) without opting out of employing people as ministers altogether?
Ministers are not state employees. Let's remember that the RCs don't do women priests.
-
But the person would be contradicting the teaching of his scripture.
its only a made up story ffs, get over yourself.
-
But the person would be contradicting the teaching of his scripture.
Then perhaps the problem is the scripture.
-
The Bible would have to be re-written or banned
and we are back at you contradicting yourself and stopping ISIS from killing homosexuals! You support an interpretation of a 'holy' book as a justification then you support them.
Oh and BTW the way why would it have to be banned?
-
The Bible would have to be re-written or banned
you said it ;D
-
The Bible would have to be re-written or banned
Or perhaps it should seen more as a curiosity that is undoubtedly of cultural and historic interest, but is no longer socially relevant: no need to change it or ban it, just don't take it too seriously (or expect others to).
-
Easy peasy: just stop the homophobic discrimination and these problems will go away.
So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own. As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.
-
Ministers are not state employees. Let's remember that the RCs don't do women priests.
Are you saying tha the RCC should be required to do women priests?
-
and we are back at you contradicting yourself and stopping ISIS from killing homosexuals! You support an interpretation of a 'holy' book as a justification then you support them.
Oh and BTW the way why would it have to be banned?
I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion.
-
So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own. As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.
So you want ISIS to be able to kill homosexuals, after all it's living according to their conscience. So you want to stop so called discrimination against black people, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course it's often one way to keep ourselves safe.
BTW how are you keeping yourself safe by your wanting to treat homosexuals unequally?
-
I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion.
in what way? I notice you ignored the logical conclusion of your position, I.e. that because conscience should be respected then ISIS should be respected. Why did you you do that! Why ignore the point in the post you quoted?
-
So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own. As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.
So racism is OK is it?
-
Are you saying tha the RCC should be required to do women priests?
No, I'm pointing out that your position was wrong because they aren"t required to 'do' women priests. What an odd and slightly disturbing word to use! But then you want ISIS to be required not to 'do in' homosexuals because mmm, you are being hypocritical in your argument.
-
So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own.
Not really: I just want to see an end to irrational homophobia just as much as I'd like to see an end to any form of irrational discrimination. In addition I think the sexuality of consenting adults is none of my damned business, or yours.
As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.
Tu quoque.
-
So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own.
More like wanting to people to live as though they possess a conscience rather than lack one.
-
So, you want people to live according to your conscience, rather than their own. As for stopping the so-called homophobic discrimination, as humans we discriminate almost as a matter of course - its often one way to keep ourselves safe.
How does your desire to prevent same-sex couples from marrying keep you safe? Safe from what?
Since equal marriage is, thank goodness, a done deal, are you less safe now than before its introduction and in what way(s)?
-
Not really: I just want to see an end to irrational homophobia just as much as I'd like to see an end to any form of irrational discrimination. In addition I think the sexuality of consenting adults is none of my damned business, or yours.
Tu quoque.
id rather it was your quoque if you don't mind I have plans for mine !
-
in what way? I notice you ignored the logical conclusion of your position, I.e. that because conscience should be respected then ISIS should be respected. Why did you you do that! Why ignore the point in the post you quoted?
No, I was saying that because, as you point out, the logical conclusion of respecting conscience is that isis should be respected, therefore we should not allow freedom of conscience at all: to the extent that religious organisations which will not allow women or practicing homosexuals to be priests should be shut down or their scriptures altered/banned.
-
No, I'm pointing out that your position was wrong because they aren"t required to 'do' women priests. What an odd and slightly disturbing word to use! But then you want ISIS to be required not to 'do in' homosexuals because mmm, you are being hypocritical in your argument.
I used the word 'do' because you did.
-
No, I was saying that because, as you point out, the logical conclusion of respecting conscience is that isis should be respected, therefore we should not allow freedom of conscience at all: to the extent that religious organisations which will not allow women or practicing homosexuals to be priests should be shut down or their scriptures altered/banned.
In other words, there has to be some freedom of conscience. I'd say that this ought to be judged by whether harm is caused to a person as a result of being discriminated against. Since there are other ways for homosexuals to marry, such as through a civil registrar, and also other options available to them, such as civil partnerships or celibacy, it is not harmful to them if they are declined by a religious organisation.
-
I used the word 'do' because you did.
fairy 'nuff. My bad? Any reason for again ignitprung the re
St of my post as you did previously? Why are you ignoring that you are not arguing consistently despite this being pointed out multiple times?
-
In other words, there has to be some freedom of conscience. I'd say that this ought to be judged by whether harm is caused to a person as a result of being discriminated against. Since there are other ways for homosexuals to marry, such as through a civil registrar, it is not harmful to them if they are declined by a religious organisation.
But a civil registrar should do the job in line with the law. So if as you are suggesting religious marriage should be entirely that, then that's fair enough, and that there should be gay civic marriage then that's fair enough with ne. Is that your current position?
-
No, I was saying that because, as you point out, the logical conclusion of respecting conscience is that isis should be respected, therefore we should not allow freedom of conscience at all: to the extent that religious organisations which will not allow women or practicing homosexuals to be priests should be shut down or their scriptures altered/banned.
no, this isn't a logical conclusion. You are allowed to express disagreement with the law. Mein Kampf isn't banned. Different set of decisions.
-
But a civil registrar should do the job in line with the law. So if as you are suggesting religious marriage should be entirely that, then that's fair enough, and that there should be gay civic marriage then that's fair enough with ne. Is that your current position?
I meant that a secular civil registrar can marry them if declined by a religious registrar; so they are still able to marry, thus no harm done and a religious registrar hasn't wronged them by declining.
-
no, this isn't a logical conclusion. You are allowed to express disagreement with the law. Mein Kampf isn't banned. Different set of decisions.
But if churches are required to do ssm, a church that refuses to then will have broken the law
-
I meant that a secular civil registrar can marry them if declined by a religious registrar; so they are still able to marry, thus no harm done and a religious registrar hasn't wronged them by declining.
The religious registrar has discriminated since the people are entitled to marry - I'd certainly say the religious registrar had 'wronged' them, and presumably the 'wronged' here share the faith of the registrar.
Your position is untenable, Spud, though I expect you'll avoid seeing this since it would involve taking a risk regarding your faith.
-
But if churches are required to do ssm, a church that refuses to then will have broken the law
If I drive too fast I'll have broken the law - and?
-
But if churches are required to do ssm, a church that refuses to then will have broken the law
Which has nothing to do with banning scripture. And note my position is not that that should carry out SSM but that they should n't carry out civic marriage!
-
#302 & 304:
In #273 I pointed out that ssm is not the only issue. Giving a position as a priest or youth worker to someone who is practicing homosexuality would be contradictory to the faith; churches are currently exempt from equality law in this case. If you were to ban this and all similar discrimination (such as teaching passages like Romans 1 which condemns the practice of homosexuality) the entire Christian faith would have to be restricted, which is fine if the government is confident that enough people will stand for it. Congregations which want to teach this interpretation of the Bible would have to go underground. I was just thinking that there isn't much difference between allowing churches exemption from ssm and allowing them exemption from giving practicing homosexuals positions of leadership.
-
If I drive too fast I'll have broken the law - and?
And you might kill someone. Hence it's illegal.
-
#302 & 304:
In #273 I pointed out that ssm is not the only issue. Giving a position as a priest or youth worker to someone who is practicing homosexuality would be contradictory to the faith; churches are currently exempt from equality law in this case. If you were to ban this and all similar discrimination (such as teaching passages like Romans 1 which condemns the practice of homosexuality) the entire Christian faith would have to be restricted, which is fine if the government is confident that enough people will stand for it. Congregations which want to teach this interpretation of the Bible would have to go underground. I was just thinking that there isn't much difference between allowing churches exemption from ssm and allowing them exemption from giving practicing homosexuals positions of leadership.
So that would surely mean you cannot give roles to anyone who sins which means no one can be appointed. As to the subject of appointing people internally in the your churches, I don't really care. But if you employ people such as accountants or cleaners deuscrimunating against them because of the sexuality would be against the law.
-
And you might kill someone. Hence it's illegal.
you can kill people driving within the speed limit - so you think that driving should be illegal in the basis of the hence.
-
And you might kill someone. Hence it's illegal.
What if someone thought only white people should be married in a church?
-
#302 & 304:
In #273 I pointed out that ssm is not the only issue. Giving a position as a priest or youth worker to someone who is practicing homosexuality would be contradictory to the faith; churches are currently exempt from equality law in this case. If you were to ban this and all similar discrimination (such as teaching passages like Romans 1 which condemns the practice of homosexuality) the entire Christian faith would have to be restricted, which is fine if the government is confident that enough people will stand for it.
I suspect most people wouldn't be bothered: remember most of us aren't actively involved in Christianity and for some of us it is utterly irrelevant.
Congregations which want to teach this interpretation of the Bible would have to go underground.
Why - all they need do is opt out of conducting civil marriage.
I was just thinking that there isn't much difference between allowing churches exemption from ssm and allowing them exemption from giving practicing homosexuals positions of leadership.
Both would be permitting discrimination, so such exemptions are perverse.
-
Congregations which want to teach this interpretation of the Bible would have to go underground.
Deal.
-
Both would be permitting discrimination, so such exemptions are perverse
......
So not only should they opt out of SSM, but teaching the Bible as well.
-
you can kill people driving within the speed limit - so you think that driving should be illegal in the basis of the hence.
Speed limits are dependent upon people driving safely
-
What if someone thought only white people should be married in a church?
Not a biblical teaching so not very relevant?
-
So that would surely mean you cannot give roles to anyone who sins which means no one can be appointed. As to the subject of appointing people internally in the your churches, I don't really care. But if you employ people such as accountants or cleaners deuscrimunating against them because of the sexuality would be against the law.
Yes, everybody sins, but the idea is for people not to continue to sin.
Yes agreed about cleaners etc.
-
Both would be permitting discrimination, so such exemptions are perverse
......
So not only should they opt out of SSM, but teaching the Bible as well.
Provided they don't discriminate I don't care what they do with the Bible - as long as they keep it to themselves.
-
Not a biblical teaching so not very relevant?
Some people have thought it to be. And we are back at you not wanting conscience but just your conscience
-
Yes, everybody sins, but the idea is for people not to continue to sin.
Yes agreed about cleaners etc.
But if they continue sinning, they are surely practicing sinners?
-
But if they continue sinning, they are surely practicing sinners?
I meant sin more in the sense of a vice. if they give up practicing homosexuality they would be able to be given a role.
-
Some people have thought it to be. And we are back at you not wanting conscience but just your conscience
And they were shown to be wrong, so we're not back there!
-
Provided they don't discriminate I don't care what they do with the Bible - as long as they keep it to themselves.
But when you marry two people or teach something in church that is always a public action.
-
And they were shown to be wrong, so we're not back there!
So if that were sure that were right, how can you be sure you are?
-
I meant sin more in the sense of a vice. if they give up practicing homosexuality they would be able to be given a role.
what's this split between vice and sin? Hope thinks you are wring so why are you right?
-
But when you marry two people or teach something in church that is always a public action.
But not a govt sanctioned one.
-
I meant sin more in the sense of a vice. if they give up practicing homosexuality they would be able to be given a role.
So, are you saying homosexual people who are sexually active are committing 'vice'?
-
But when you marry two people or teach something in church that is always a public action.
If it doesn't involve social legislation where the criteria isn't discretionary, such as those that make marriage legal, then what goes on in churches post-marriage is essentially a private event.
-
So if that were sure that were right, how can you be sure you are?
People use scripture to justify all kinds of things, including that the Bible teaches homosexuality is ok. This is, I believe, partly what the CofE advisory document to Parliament pre-2014 was correcting. Parliament clearly judged them to be correct.
-
If it doesn't involve social legislation where the criteria isn't discretionary, such as those that make marriage legal, then what goes on in churches post-marriage is essentially a private event.
Ironically, in most church marriages in Britain the legal bit is the second stage of the ceremony. The individuals are married in the eyes of God before they are married in the eyes of the law.
-
Ironically, in most church marriages in Britain the legal bit is the second stage of the ceremony. The individuals are married in the eyes of God before they are married in the eyes of the law.
The reality is though that they ain't legally married until the legal stuff is done.
This isn't about any religious preamble to the legal marriage, which is discretionary and makes no difference to the legal status - the key issue is about equal access to the people who can administer the legal element of marriage.
-
Ironically, in most church marriages in Britain the legal bit is the second stage of the ceremony. The individuals are married in the eyes of God before they are married in the eyes of the law.
Hope, the stuff you keep coming out with about gay people is a really good example of time passing you and yours by.
ippy
-
Ironically, in most church marriages in Britain the legal bit is the second stage of the ceremony. The individuals are married in the eyes of God before they are married in the eyes of the law.
But if the legal bit isn't there there is no marriage, the couple aren't married. You can happily jettison the religious stuff (as if is the case for the majority of marriages held in the UK) and provided the legal stuff is still there then the marriage is valid.
So imagine a wedding that for whatever reason ended up curtailed (e.g. a fire alarm) after the religious bit but before the legal bit - would the couple be married? Nope.
The legal stuff is required for a marriage to be valid - the religious stuff completely optional and irrelevant to the validity of the marriage.
-
Not an answer to the question. Can I refuse to treat a Jewish person as a doctor because it's against my conscience?
Doctors take an oath and the oath would not allow them to refuse treatment to anyone on such basis. But having said that, can you trust doctors whose religion makes them choose a different path.
Can and worms come to mind. Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming.
-
Doctors take an oath and the oath would not allow them to refuse treatment to anyone on such basis. But having said that, can you trust doctors whose religion makes them choose a different path.
Can and worms come to mind. Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming.
Yet another silly assertion! ::)
-
Yet another silly assertion! ::)
what's coming ,Sassy?
-
what's coming ,Sassy?
A new series of Celebrity Big Brother.
That truly is the end of the world as we know it.
-
A new series of Celebrity Big Brother.
That truly is the end of the world as we know it.
oh please no NO.
-
A new series of Celebrity Big Brother.
That truly is the end of the world as we know it.
True! ;D ;D ;D
-
Doctors take an oath and the oath would not allow them to refuse treatment to anyone on such basis. But having said that, can you trust doctors whose religion makes them choose a different path.
Can and worms come to mind. Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming.
Sass I noticed you wrote the following: 'Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming', there's no need for abuse or anything like that but can you tell me how you have acquired this information and is the source reliable, reliable insomuch as it's information that can be verified to be factual and it's not just another one of your numerous, never ending list of assertions?
ippy
-
The legal stuff is required for a marriage to be valid - the religious stuff completely optional and irrelevant to the validity of the marriage.
The problem is that ministers in religious organisations are qualified to do the legal stuff, and you guys are saying they should either resign from doing that or apostatize. Thankfully Parliament saw things from their perspective and gave them the opt out.
-
The problem is that ministers in religious organisations are qualified to do the legal stuff, and you guys are saying they should either resign from doing that or apostatize. Thankfully Parliament saw things from their perspective and gave them the opt out.
no we are not saying that. We are saying that Parliament should gave stopped them acting as registrars.
-
no we are not saying that. We are saying that Parliament should gave stopped them acting as registrars.
its not a vote winner though is it , sadly.
-
its not a vote winner though is it , sadly.
Very few pieces of legislation are though.
-
The problem is that ministers in religious organisations are qualified to do the legal stuff, and you guys are saying they should either resign from doing that or apostatize. Thankfully Parliament saw things from their perspective and gave them the opt out.
Where have I ever said that?
My point is that without the legal stuff there is no marriage, regardless of how much religious stuff there is - without the religious stuff there is a marriage provided the legal stuff is completed.
And any religious minister who is also qualified as a registrar knows this - hence the curtailed wedding that is halted after the religious stuff but before the legal stuff. The minister will know that there is no valid marriage and they'll have to come back and complete the requirements for a marriage. Were it to be the other way around - the legal stuff had been completed but none of the religious stuff had happened then a marriage would have taken place, and indeed to try to re-run it would probably be unlawful.
-
True! ;D ;D ;D
Very true for anyone with at least two or three functioning brain cells.
ippy
-
The problem is that ministers in religious organisations are qualified to do the legal stuff, and you guys are saying they should either resign from doing that or apostatize. Thankfully Parliament saw things from their perspective and gave them the opt out.
I suspect that it is more the case that in view of the established status of the C of E, and especially the links to the monarchy, in order to get the legislation through it was pragmatic to exclude the C of E from social progress.
It would have been better to ensure that those acting as registrars were required to provide the service to all who were entitled to marry, where those acting as registrars who felt unable to comply were effectively disqualifying themselves from the registrar role.
-
no we are not saying that. We are saying that Parliament should gave stopped them acting as registrars.
OK.
I suspect that it is more the case that in view of the established status of the C of E, and especially the links to the monarchy, in order to get the legislation through it was pragmatic to exclude the C of E from social progress.
It would have been better to ensure that those acting as registrars were required to provide the service to all who were entitled to marry, where those acting as registrars who felt unable to comply were effectively disqualifying themselves from the registrar role.
This could not have been the right approach, because, as most people would agree, the Bible says it's wrong. They would have been tempting them to act against what their scripture teaches (ie apostatize) in order to keep their licences. The best thing would have been either to disqualify all church ministers from acting as registrars, as NS said, or allow them to do so without requiring them to conduct SSMs. The acts of marrying same sex couples and giving practicing homosexuals positions in ministry, both of which a church is currently not required to do, would involve a minister doing something that is against biblical teaching, and thus illogical.
To disallow ministers of religion to act as registrars (for heterosexual couples) would likewise be illogical. This is because the marriage service in (say) a Christian wedding is by nature more 'valid' (probably the wrong word) than a simple civil ceremony, since it is done in the sight of God and includes promises of lifelong faithfulness etc (which civil ceremonies do not require). It thus makes marriages stronger.
Just a few thoughts there.
-
OK.This could not have been the right approach, because, as most people would agree, the Bible says it's wrong.
That the Bible says it's 'wrong', if that is indeed what it says, isn't binding in a secular 21st century society.
They would have been tempting them to act against what their scripture teaches (ie apostatize) in order to keep their licences. The best thing would have been either to disqualify all church ministers from acting as registrars, as NS said, or allow them to do so without requiring them to conduct SSMs.
The former, Spud, aside from clerics who are prepared to act as registrars without discriminating.
The issues of marrying same sex couples and giving practicing homosexuals positions in ministry, both of which a church is currently not required to do, would involve a minister doing something that is against biblical teaching, and thus illogical.
I'd have thought the church could do with all the talent it could get. Given, however, that the Bible has been 'interpreted' to within an inch of its life I'd have thought there would be no problem in doing so again. If not, the adherence to 'scripture' seems like a do-it-yourself hangman's kit.
To disallow ministers of religion to act as registrars (for heterosexual couples) would likewise be illogical.
If they can't stop discriminating then they need to relinquish the role - marriage is an important institution so it is best kept out of the hands of homophobic bigots.
This is because the marriage service in (say) a Christian wedding is by nature more valid than a simple civil ceremony, since it is done in the sight of God and includes promises of lifelong faithfulness etc (which civil ceremonies do not require). It thus makes marriages stronger.
This sounds like special pleading Spud - have you asked those who married without a religious input if they feel less married than those who did the church thing?
-
Marriage is always to be taken seriously, regardless of religion. However, in Catholicism, marriage is a Sacrament, as it is in the CofE and in the Orthodox Churches who also call Sacraments, "Traditional Mysteries".
I understand marriage is not a Sacrament in the Church of Scotland and other denominations.
-
Doctors take an oath and the oath would not allow them to refuse treatment to anyone on such basis.
I'm not sure they do any more, to be honest. And even when they do, it's their interpretation of what constitutes harm (not that the phrase 'do not harm' actually appears in most variants of the Hippocratic Oath), and even then there are any number of administrative burdens on them that dictate what they can or can't offer before it ever gets to their decisions.
But having said that, can you trust doctors whose religion makes them choose a different path.
I suspect it's a case-by-case (if you'll excuse the pun) thing, rather than a blanket decision. In general, most people who decided to go into medicine do it in order to help people; if their religion is an influence in that, generally it will be a moral motivation to help.
Gods way is the only way to survive what is coming.
What, Valentine's Day? And which god(s)?
O.
-
Marriage is always to be taken seriously, regardless of religion. However, in Catholicism, marriage is a Sacrament, as it is in the CofE and in the Orthodox Churches who also call Sacraments, "Traditional Mysteries".
I understand marriage is not a Sacrament in the Church of Scotland and other denominations.
[/quot
Yep, There are but two sacrements in the CofS (in common with most Reformed churche); baptism and Communion.
However Christian marriage is seen as a very solemn and important act where vows before God count - and is therefore only performed by a minister, and is between man and woman.
Ministers can be (and have been) disciplined by Presbytery for performing civil marriage witthout religious content - discipline ranges from censure, through suspension of the right to conduct marriage ceremonies, to dismissal from the ministry.
-
OK.This could not have been the right approach, because, as most people would agree, the Bible says it's wrong. They would have been tempting them to act against what their scripture teaches (ie apostatize) in order to keep their licences.
Not really, because as you are trying to establish here, marriage as a spiritual status in the eyes of your god is a different thing to the secular, legal marriage that requires a registrar. If you wish to merge the two then you have to strike a balance between two independent sets of requirements.
As to whether or not 'The Bible' says anything in particular, there are always scholars willing to come down on both sides of any given debate: I've not seen anyone, yet, contradict that point that throughout the New Testament Jesus never has anything to say about gay people...
The acts of marrying same sex couples and giving practicing homosexuals positions in ministry, both of which a church is currently not required to do, would involve a minister doing something that is against biblical teaching, and thus illogical.
But extolling the virtues of an invisible sky-fairy who is all-powerful but needs your love, despite considering your a flawed, despicable, sinful abberant in need of saving is perfectly logical, right?
To disallow ministers of religion to act as registrars (for heterosexual couples) would likewise be illogical. This is because the marriage service in (say) a Christian wedding is by nature more 'valid' (probably the wrong word) than a simple civil ceremony, since it is done in the sight of God and includes promises of lifelong faithfulness etc (which civil ceremonies do not require). It thus makes marriages stronger.
As is evidenced by the signicantly lower divorce rate amongst religiously minded people of... oh, wait, no, pretty much everyone sits between 30 and 35%... You might consider it 'more valid', as someone who went through a church wedding (and is still married to the same wonderful lady nearly 20 years later) largely because the picture opportunities were better than the registrar's office, I found most of the waffle about gods got in the way of what actually mattered: how we felt about each other, and how we intended to treat each other.
O.
-
Hi Outrider,
I am actually similar to you in that I'd quite like a straightforward ceremony without too much waffle (if it ever happens). The idea that we are not in God's presence unless we are in a church is wrong, of course, but I noticed that the civil ceremony requires only legal declarations and contracting words, and promises are an optional extra. Without some kind of requirement for promises to be made it becomes possible to marry someone without loving them or intending to be faithful. The church wedding is designed to at least look like the couple are committing themselves for real, even if they are not intending to (although a civil ceremony can be equally real). Even if there is a lot of waffle, that's preferable imo. I think most people would agree that, for example, a marriage that is contracted just in order to have children, while the couple don't love each other, doesn't have the full meaning it should have.
-
The idea that we are not in God's presence unless we are in a church is wrong, of course,
I agree, but obviously not for the reasons you think that's the case :P
I noticed that the civil ceremony requires only legal declarations and contracting words, and promises are an optional extra. Without some kind of requirement for promises to be made it becomes possible to marry someone without loving them or intending to be faithful.
Right? Surely that's between the people involved. Marriage for an incredible length of time had nothing to do with love, it was about heredity, proof of lineage of children and political alliances (certainly in Europe, and to a degree in other cultural backgrounds), and the churches involved themselves to try to get some degree of control on the levers of political power.
The church wedding is designed to at least look real, even if the couple are not intending it to be (although a civil ceremony can be equally real).
The church wedding, so far as I can tell, is designed to hijack someone's relationship to try and lever religion into everyone's life.
I think most people would agree that, for example, a marriage that is contracted just in order to have children, while the couple don't love each other, doesn't have the full meaning it should have.
I think that a couple who get married have their own reasons, and it's probably not your or my place to judge them.
O.
-
Marriage for an incredible length of time had nothing to do with love, it was about heredity, proof of lineage of children and political alliances (certainly in Europe, and to a degree in other cultural backgrounds), and the churches involved themselves to try to get some degree of control on the levers of political power.
Yeah but that's not 'proper' marriage, is it?
-
Yeah but that's not 'proper' marriage, is it?
What is a proper marriage? Marriage is many things to many people, depending on what suits them.
-
I noticed that the civil ceremony requires only legal declarations and contracting words, and promises are an optional extra. Without some kind of requirement for promises to be made it becomes possible to marry someone without loving them or intending to be faithful.
I think you'll find, Spud, that most civil weddings include personal promises to each other as written by the couple (sometimes excruciatingly so): the last few I attended all did, including my son's wedding a few months back.
The church wedding is designed to at least look like the couple are committing themselves for real, even if they are not intending to (although a civil ceremony can be equally real).
Aside from contrived weddings, for residency purposes, what makes you think that most couples who marry aren't committed to each other (at that point anyway)?
Even if there is a lot of waffle, that's preferable imo. I think most people would agree that, for example, a marriage that is contracted just in order to have children, while the couple don't love each other, doesn't have the full meaning it should have.
How many marriages do you think are 'contracted just in order to have children', especially since people don't have to get married in order to have children, and on what basis are you assuming some marriages don't have 'full meaning'?
Have to say, Spud, I think it unwise to pass judgment on the marriages of others. Aside from all the personal and private dynamic between the couple, that you simply don't and can't know, legally competent marriages between people you don't know are none of your business?
-
Those partnerships which include children must ensure they are well cared for, whether their parents are married, unmarried, gay or straight.
-
Yeah but that's not 'proper' marriage, is it?
In whose eyes? It was proper enough for the church, certainly, for a long time. For a considerable chunk of the modern UK populace it probably wouldn't constitute a 'proper' marriage, no, but then for a considerable chunk of the UK populace there might be objections to: two men; a white man and a black woman; a barren woman and anyone; under 21s; over 60s...
Who gets to make the decision, and on what basis, is sort of the crux of the argument, and in the absence of pressing justifications (such as, say, the immaturity of children) I don't see a justification for the state to put limits on anyone's choice.
O.
-
I think you'll find, Spud, that most civil weddings include personal promises to each other as written by the couple (sometimes excruciatingly so): the last few I attended all did, including my son's wedding a few months back.
Aside from contrived weddings, for residency purposes, what makes you think that most couples who marry aren't committed to each other (at that point anyway)?
How many marriages do you think are 'contracted just in order to have children', especially since people don't have to get married in order to have children, and on what basis are you assuming some marriages don't have 'full meaning'?
Have to say, Spud, I think it unwise to pass judgment on the marriages of others. Aside from all the personal and private dynamic between the couple, that you simply don't and can't know, legally competent marriages between people you don't know are none of your business?
I don't think that "most couples who marry aren't committed to each other". The lack of requirement for vows to actually be said does however leave room for one or both members of a couple to not be totally serious.
Because the ideal is that a couple love each other and remain together for life, an organisation such as the church writes this into the ceremony in some way so as to make sure people don't get married without being accountable.
That benefit would be lost if a minister had to resign from his role as registrar altogether. Maybe this is why it was feared that SSM would lead to a "watering down of marriage".
-
Ideally marriage should mean people are in it for the long term, but if it breaks down and cannot be fixed, they should part. No one should stay together just for the sake of the kids, a bad atmosphere in the home with rowing parents is NOT fun for children! :o
-
I don't think that "most couples who marry aren't committed to each other". The lack of requirement for vows to actually be said does however leave room for one or both members of a couple to not be totally serious.
How do you identify those you conclude aren't serious? To what extent couples make use of vows is surely a matter for them and is also a matter of personal taste. Tell me, Spud, do people who have a religious wedding ever divorce?
Because the ideal is that a couple love each other and remain together for life, an organisation such as the church writes this into the ceremony in some way so as to make sure people don't get married without being accountable.
I'd have thought compatibility would be a factor long before any decision to marry,
That benefit would be lost if a minister had to resign from his role as registrar altogether. Maybe this is why it was feared that SSM would lead to a "watering down of marriage".
Do you honestly think that where people elect for a religious marriage that the cleric involved dispenses some kind or marital superglue? The 'watering down' claim is, of course, just the slippery slope fallacy.
-
Spud, people live together and are quite committed, even without legalising their relationship. Ask anyone who has split up with a long term partner how traumatic the break up is and you will find it is much the same as if they were married. The difference is they don't have to pay for a divorce (which is expensive, the court fees alone cost over four grand), but that is probably the smallest consideration at the time of breaking up. There is little difference from what i can see. They share property, car, lifestyle; breaking up is very hard so don't tell me it's done lightly.
There are exceptions of course: you do see people rushing into relationships which break up quickly but in the past, they probably would have rushed into marriage and broken up quickly, which makes everything far more difficult - especially for young people. Let's face it, who would want to be twice divorced before the age of thirty?
One in five couples marrying nowadays have a child or children too so they have made a commitment. ( The CofE incorporates the children into the wedding service. )
You may not like any of that - you don't have to - but don't tell us the above people treat their relationship lightly or that making public vows would make much of a difference.
During my insomniac night, I looked up marriage in the Anglican church and found it to be, on the whole, quite accommodating to most people.
This is what is said about SSM:
https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/information-for-same-sex-couples/
Well, we know the vicar cannot marry a same sex couple but, from what the above said, an unauthorised, ie informal or own-words ceremony, can be performed in church at the discretion of the minister. In the first place, I would think a committed same sex couple, who were Christian, would choose a church that was sympathetic to gay partnerships and give the 'antis' a wide berth.
That is progress, Spud, and there will be more in the future but it takes time. The Church does not want to alienate anyone.
Even in the Catholic Church, Pope Frances is slowly trying to alter established thinking about marriage which is upsetting the Traditionals atm, but he is at least meeting people where they are now and showing some love whereas, previously, they would have been left out in the cold.
But - none of this matters for non-believers and we cannot impose religious constraints on the non-religious, or judge them.
-
Marriage is a relatively recent concept as far as the law goes (in Scotland, at any rate.) In times past, if a couple declared their commitment before witnesses, then to all intent and purpose, they were married - 'handfasting' still seen in a touristified form in Gretna is the last vestige of this. Only when registration of birth became a legal requirement, did a formal certificate, and therefore ceremony, of marriage become the norm. Previously, only those who could afford it would go for a formal church wedding (the hangover from when marriage was seen as sacremental), the remainder settling for a blessing by a minister or elder, either at home, where the handfasting took place, or at some other time, possibly following a normal Sunday service in the Kirk. I don't see why we now need a formal certificate of marriage in the 21st century.
-
I don't see why we now need a formal certificate of marriage in the 21st century.
How do you expect Daily Fail readers to identify the single mothers who are ruining the world without certification!!!
O.
-
How do you expect Daily Fail readers to identify the single mothers who are ruining the world without certification!!!
O.
LOL!
-
Marriage is a relatively recent concept as far as the law goes (in Scotland, at any rate.) In times past, if a couple declared their commitment before witnesses, then to all intent and purpose, they were married - 'handfasting' still seen in a touristified form in Gretna is the last vestige of this. Only when registration of birth became a legal requirement, did a formal certificate, and therefore ceremony, of marriage become the norm. Previously, only those who could afford it would go for a formal church wedding (the hangover from when marriage was seen as sacremental), the remainder settling for a blessing by a minister or elder, either at home, where the handfasting took place, or at some other time, possibly following a normal Sunday service in the Kirk. I don't see why we now need a formal certificate of marriage in the 21st century.
Quite right.
-
Marriage is a relatively recent concept as far as the law goes (in Scotland, at any rate.) In times past, if a couple declared their commitment before witnesses, then to all intent and purpose, they were married
It was the same in ancient Rome, I gather. If you lived as married and said you were married, you were married.
-
I heard something fairly recently about Quakers who were, at one time, persecuted for their beliefs which is why they tended to form communities.
Their marriages were not recognised! In other words, Quakers could not marry in the eyes of the law of the land. So they had their own ceremony and everybody present signed a document, witnessing the couple's commitment to eachother. Even now, those who marry in a Friends' Meeting House do the same, in remembrance of those Friends of earlier times.
I was told this by someone who has a brother and sister in law who are Quakers and whose wedding he attended - and witnessed. I found it all quite moving.
-
It was the same in ancient Rome, I gather. If you lived as married and said you were married, you were married.
-
I've had to listen to various Kirk Session records as part of a historical review.
The Kirk Session is the 'court' consisting of the minister and elders in a local Church of Scotland Parish.
Anyhoo, many cases were attested in bygone days, and they invariably started
"That in the case of ----------- and -----------, who, having declared their marriage before witnesses and having been recorded as married by the Session Clerk....."
It seems that, though regarded by the Kirk as married, no actual service of marriage was necessary.
-
So we're scrapping marriage then? Yay. No more problems.
-
So we're scrapping marriage then? Yay. No more problems.
Nope - just removing discrimation in terms of entitlement to legally marry, it isn't compulsory though and some in long-term relationships may decide not to bother with marriage.
Up to them really, and having removed the legal restriction for same-sex couples what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.
-
Nope - just removing discrimation in terms of entitlement to legally marry, it isn't compulsory though and some in long-term relationships may decide not to bother with marriage.
Up to them really, and having removed the legal restriction for same-sex couples what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.
Are their still problems of discrimination with that great secular institution ''Civil Partnership''?
-
Are their still problems of discrimination with that great secular institution ''Civil Partnership''?
There are: ideally they should make that discrimination-free too, for those that want it. It was a fudge form the word go.
-
Are their still problems of discrimination with that great secular institution ''Civil Partnership''?
Christ on a bike. You don't just flog a dead horse do you?
You get on it, rip it's head off and still expect it to move, and then you fuck it.
As has been pointed out many, many time before - this is nothing to do with secularists not wanting equal opportunity for civil partnerships - it is that government do not regard it as a high enough priority.
Go and talk to Theresa Maybe.
-
Christ on a bike. You don't just flog a dead horse do you?
You get on it, rip it's head off and still expect it to move, and then you fuck it.
As has been pointed out many, many time before - this is nothing to do with secularists not wanting equal opportunity for civil partnerships - it is that government do not regard it as a high enough priority.
Go and talk to Theresa Maybe.
Don't be too hard on Vlad Trent, it's a bit of he doesn't really understand exactly what secularism is or consists of and he's finding it difficult to twist around the bits of secularism he nearly understands into his distorted version of the same.
ippy
-
Up to them really, and having removed the legal restriction for same-sex couples what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.
So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition? How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world). By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open. After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.
-
So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition?
Where did I suggest this, or even indicate that I thought further refinement of legal marriage was indicated? Clearly you have too much straw in your hands?
How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world). By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open. After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.
Feel better now?
This is nothing but a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy,
-
Where did I suggest this, or even indicate that I thought further refinement of legal marriage was indicated? Clearly you have too much straw in your hands?
I was taking this comment of yours what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.
on its next logical steps. After all, it took the gay community a generation or two to have their form of relationship recognised in this way - why not other forms?
Feel better now?
This is nothing but a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy,
But it is also an example of logical forward-thinking. Its only a slippery slope argument for you, because you don't want any additional freedoms to be considered or allowed.
-
I was taking this comment of yours
So you did: but you only used the latter part of what I said, thereby changing the context. I've quoted what I said in full below and have underlined the bit you omitted, where I was clearly referring only to the recent legislative changes involve SSM and not the marriage free-for-all that you've implied I meant via your selective quoting.
Up to them really, and having removed the legal restriction for same-sex couples what all couples choose to do regarding marriage is their own business and not ours.
I'd have thought I was clearly referring to the recent legislative change in favour of SSM as it relates to couples - how on earth you've interpreted this to imply I'm up for redefining marriage in favour of polygamy as suggested in this ramble of yours, below, beats me.
So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition? How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world). By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open. After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.
But it is also an example of logical forward-thinking. Its only a slippery slope argument for you, because you don't want any additional freedoms to be considered or allowed.
More straw: not content with misrepresenting me, as noted above, you're now telling me that I'm trying to constrain marriage from further redefinition when I haven't even raised the issue - in fact it was you, as quoted above, hence my pointing out you'd leaped onto the slippery slope fallacy.
This is desperate stuff from you, Hope - you really do need to read for comprehension.
-
So you did: but you only used the latter part of what I said, thereby changing the context. I've quoted what I said in full below and have underlined the bit you omitted, where I was clearly referring only to the recent legislative changes involve SSM and not the marriage free-for-all that you've implied I meant via your selective quoting.
But instead of referring to the legislative past, I was referring to the potential for a legislative future. Contrary to your rather narrow thinking, I was looking at how a single change to a centuries-old definition could lead to further changes down the line. I know that you like to think of this as 'slippery-slope' thinking, (which would seem to suggest that you have a negative attitude to change) but it often takes a single small step to start further change that, down the line, sees massive changes - some good, some bad.
More straw: not content with misrepresenting me, as noted above, you're now telling me that I'm trying to constrain marriage from further redefinition when I haven't even raised the issue - in fact it was you, as quoted above, hence my pointing out you'd leaped onto the slippery slope fallacy.
The every fact that you refer to the (negative) slippery slope fallacy concept suggests that you want the change to stop at the point we are currently at.
This is desperate stuff from you, Hope - you really do need to read for comprehension.
hereas you need to choose fallacy accusations with care, as they often hold connotations that you might not be wanting to portray.
-
How do you identify those you conclude aren't serious? To what extent couples make use of vows is surely a matter for them and is also a matter of personal taste. Tell me, Spud, do people who have a religious wedding ever divorce?
I'd have thought compatibility would be a factor long before any decision to marry,
Do you honestly think that where people elect for a religious marriage that the cleric involved dispenses some kind or marital superglue? The 'watering down' claim is, of course, just the slippery slope fallacy.
As I said, we are talking about an ideal. Of course no one is faultless and we have to forgive, but it isn't impossible for a couple to stay together for life, wait until married before sleeping together, be one man + one woman etc
-
I even heard that the bride's veil is symbolic of waiting until they are married before kissing!
-
I'd have thought compatibility would be a factor long before any decision to marry,
And just what does the term 'compatability' mean? Its one of these terms that has very little meaning since there are so many aspects of a relationship that it could apply to.
-
As I said, we are talking about an ideal. Of course no one is faultless and we have to forgive, but it isn't impossible for a couple to stay together for life, wait until married before sleeping together, be one man + one woman etc
No one said it was impossible. But it's you talking about your ideal. Just a matter of your taste.
-
But instead of referring to the legislative past, I was referring to the potential for a legislative future.
Super - but in the point of mine you were replying to I didn't, yet you implied I had - and by selectively quoting me to misrepresented my position.
Contrary to your rather narrow thinking, I was looking at how a single change to a centuries-old definition could lead to further changes down the line. I know that you like to think of this as 'slippery-slope' thinking, (which would seem to suggest that you have a negative attitude to change) but it often takes a single small step to start further change that, down the line, sees massive changes - some good, some bad.
Utter drivel - the leap onto the slippery slope was made by you and not me. Not that I'm surprised since you seem to fall into fallacies with ease, and I see from the above that you're still sliding!
The every fact that you refer to the (negative) slippery slope fallacy concept suggests that you want the change to stop at the point we are currently at.
No it doesn't, I haven't said or implied that, so please stop lying.
you need to choose fallacy accusations with care, as they often hold connotations that you might not be wanting to portray.
Nope - I accuse you of fallacies because you commit them with regularity: there are no 'connotations' beyond your reasoning deficits.
-
And just what does the term 'compatability' mean? Its one of these terms that has very little meaning since there are so many aspects of a relationship that it could apply to.
You'll need to ask Spud that: I was replying to him, pointing out that couples being compatible, or not, would probably be established to their satisfaction pre-wedding.
-
As I said, we are talking about an ideal.
Which is just your subjective opinion, and is binding on nobody else.
Of course no one is faultless and we have to forgive, but it isn't impossible for a couple to stay together for life, wait until married before sleeping together, be one man + one woman etc
Only is that is what those involved choose - other choices are available.
-
So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition? How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world). By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open. After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.
I'm open to the redefinition. Multiple people, in principle, why not?
Siblings - why not? I'd suggest the potential for a lack of informed consent, the potential for hereditary problems to be magnified would both be important influences here.
Yes, there are any number of possibilities, and they have to be gauged on their own merits - this 'slippery slope' argument just gets pushed further and further back. If 'gay marriage' could lead to 'sibling marriage', then surely we should just ban 'marriage' as that leads to 'gay marriage'.
O.
-
I'm open to the redefinition. Multiple people, in principle, why not?
Siblings - why not? I'd suggest the potential for a lack of informed consent, the potential for hereditary problems to be magnified would both be important influences here.
Yes, there are any number of possibilities, and they have to be gauged on their own merits - this 'slippery slope' argument just gets pushed further and further back. If 'gay marriage' could lead to 'sibling marriage', then surely we should just ban 'marriage' as that leads to 'gay marriage'.
O.
Or indeed that it was the Married Women's Property Act that started all this!
-
I even heard that the bride's veil is symbolic of waiting until they are married before kissing!
It's a lot older than that. The earliest reference is to a late Middle Kingdom egyptian 'coffin text' ".....her face was covered from her husband, as a praise to the Hidden one"
(The 'hiden one" being an epithet of the then relatively mi nor Theban deity Amun.
-
If 'gay marriage' could lead to 'sibling marriage', then surely we should just ban 'marriage' as that leads to 'gay marriage'.
O.
'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.
No one said it was impossible. But it's you talking about your ideal. Just a matter of your taste.
It's an ideal based on facts not taste.
-
I even heard that the bride's veil is symbolic of waiting until they are married before kissing!
That must be why I chose a hat.
There is much symbolism and 'tradition' involved in wedding attire, none of which is important and all of which comes in and goes out of fashion.
Anchor, your Egyptology snippets are fascinating to me!
(As an aside, I can see Marge Simpson copied her hairstyle from Amun
http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/images/amun.gif )
-
'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.
It's an ideal based on facts not taste.
oh no it isn't
-
'Marriage' is the institution
Who wants to live in an institution?
in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.
But it already is. You're too late - you're behind the times - the world has moved on for the better and history has passed you by.
The question then becomes, why are your beliefs so at variance with fact? (Though that would take us far beyond the present discussion, for unravelling why beliefs are so at variance with fact would take us to an explanation of religious belief itself).
Your "should be" is no doubt an expression of your own typically narrow, cramped, illiberal and ugly beliefs by which you personally are perfectly entitled to live, but thankfully are not binding upon anyone else.
It's an ideal based on facts not taste.
Which facts would these be? Given that you've just condemned yourself out of your own mouth that your beliefs do not in any way, shape or form rest on facts, so you're not exactly well placed to spout about facts.
Your "ideal" may well be yours, but your unfounded opinions - again - do not dictate the life choices of anyone else.
I am tremendously happy about that fact - and in this case, it is one.
-
'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.
Doubly wrong, Spud: sex happens outwith marriage and 'marriage' is as currently defined by the local legislative body.
The horse hasn't just bolted: it has run the race, had a rubdown and is currently enjoying it's hay and oats. Events have moved on, Spud, and the reality is that UK marriage legislation doesn't match your personal preference, and now never will.
It's an ideal based on facts not taste.
The only fact of note here, Spud, is that marriage legislation doesn't accord with your personal taste: which is just your opinion and of no more relevance than my opinion that mayonnaise should be immediately banned.
-
That must be why I chose a hat.
There is much symbolism and 'tradition' involved in wedding attire, none of which is important and all of which comes in and goes out of fashion.
Anchor, your Egyptology snippets are fascinating to me!
(As an aside, I can see Marge Simpson copied her hairstyle from Amun
http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/images/amun.gif )
Cheers.....
I won't even tell you about the AE condoms (some with tiny stones impregnated)......
-
Mind boggling. Tickly I presume.
-
So, you're suggesting that the recent re-definition of marriage could be open to further re-definition? How about marriage between 3 or 4 consenting adults, or between siblings (after all, that used to occur even fairly recently in some parts of the world). By redefining marriage in the way that the UK Parliament did back in 2014, the whole topic of who can and can't marry gets thrown wide open. After all, attempts have been made in other parts of the world to widen the definition even further; just because they haven't been successful yet doesn't mean that in a decade/generation or two they won't be.
Marriage wasn't 'redefined' - rather it was extended.
But on your main point - well sure if someone or a group wants to campaign to allow other couples (or larger groups) to be able to marry they are quite welcome to do so. However every suggestion would have to be considered on its individual merits - and allowing same sex couples to marry would be irrelevant to the example you used where the challenges against their validity would be entirely different. In the case of more than 2 people the issue is, of course, valid consent. In the case of siblings the issue is problems of heredity. Neither were points in the successful debate to extend marriage to include same sex couples.
But we can have the discussion at some time in the future if campaigners want to make their claim - I don't fancy their chances but in a free country they can make their case. Marriage has evolved through the centuries and will continue to do so - to think that the situation now is the 'perfect' one and must never be changed at any future time is rather arrogant don't you think. Consider how unacceptable our current situation would be if the 'definition' of marriage from, for sake of argument, 1400 was the same now.
-
'Marriage' is the institution in which sex between a man and a woman not closely related should be confined. Nothing else can be called by the same term.
Why? Because your 'Big Boy's Book of Jewish Fairy Tales' says so (even whilst extolling any number of 'heroes' who don't comply with that restriction)? Marriage is a civil institution, and it's for society to determine what the scope and limits of it will be. In a society that values individual freedoms and personal liberties, that means that you need to justify restrictions, and 'my religion says so' only places a limit on your actions, not ours on a broader scale.
It's an ideal based on facts not taste.
What 'facts'? No-one's denying that it's written in a book you are interested in, but I've got books I'm interested in that have all sorts of arrangements for personal relationships: why should my book choices impact on your life options?
O.
Edited to adjust an egregious misuse of 'you're'!!!
-
Your "ideal" may well be yours, but your unfounded opinions - again - do not dictate the life choices of anyone else.
This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.
-
FFS, Spud, those are not facts, they are opinions.
-
This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.
I do not want to procreate every time I have sex.
Do you?
So it does not have just one purpose at all, and you are wrong!
-
I do not want to procreate every time I have sex.
Do you?
So it does not have just one purpose at all, and you are wrong!
What you want or don't want doesn't change its function.
-
And of course Spud us now calling every woman having sex past the menopause who has sex a pervert. But it's on, because it's a fact because he says it is and he has tiny hands
And since the 'function' of drinking is to keep you from dying of thirst, them having a nice cuppa just for the fun of it is a dirty dirty filthy perversion
-
What you want or don't want doesn't change its function.
er yes, it points out it has more than one function.
-
Quite right BeR.
I was taught the purpose of sex is to glorify God, bring forth children, express intimacy, provide comfort, and bless the spouse. No one aspect is more important than another.
Obviously we are biologically programmed to procreate - if we can, if the time is right and if we want to - but intimate love is equally important; were that not the case, people who can no longer conceive children or are infertile would not make love. For homo sapiens, sex is far more complex and more pleasurable than just for the purpose of producing children. The desire for intimacy comes first.
The way you describe it, Spud, reduces sex to a mere function. I've no doubt there were, and maybe still are, some who do view it that way but God wants us to be happy and enjoy life.
-
What you want or don't want doesn't change its function.
It's one possible outcome.
Do you always want to procreate when you have sex?
-
This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.
To only have sex when the woman is capable of childbirth, making sure the act is only performed at the right part of the menstrual cycle, and strictly no fellatio, let alone 69s or... (insert other sexual acts possible between man and wife here, ad libitum).
I recently visited a little home business making various kinds of 'restraining beds' used for sado-masochistic purposes (for hetero, homo couples, and any other variants . There are so many ways of being alive!
P.S.
I have to say that I find sado-masochistic practices a little hard to understand, and have no leanings in this direction of which I'm particularly aware. The business in question is run by a friend of a friend (who as far as I know is not into sado-masochism - but then how much we really know of the secret lives of our friends?)
-
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
By the way, according to this definition, the rape of the wife by the "Christian" husband is permissible.
-
By the way, according to this definition, the rape of the wife by the "Christian" husband is permissible.
only if he has checked if she is ovulating.
-
only if he has checked if she is ovulating.
That is mandatory!
-
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
Firstly - no it doesn't.
But for the sake of argument lets follow through with your view that 'sex has one purpose which is procreation' - in what way is that consistent with 'any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function'? It isn't - whether a couple are married is completely irrelevant to procreation - marriage is a social construct, procreation a biological function that exists across species, all but one of which don't engage in marriage.
Actually if your view that 'sex has one purpose which is procreation' is taken then sex between an unmarried couple at the peak of their fertility is far preferable to sex between a married couple whose fertility has dwindled, or even ceased.
-
This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.
I don't think so - they are either in the registrar business without discrimination, or they aren't!
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
In your opinion, Spud.
People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.
Sort of like a private club?
Even private clubs need to be aware of the importance of equality and respect if they are to survive. If not then they are no great loss (aside from the inconvenience to homophobic bigots), and since here in the UK the Christian church is in decline I'm wondering if perhaps social evolution is passing you guys by, so in failing to adapt you're risking extinction.
Fortunately though there are some thoughtful Christians out there (there are some here too), so perhaps all is not lost on the SSM front unless lemmingitis prevails.
-
This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.
That is not a FACT. Many married couples don't want kids, my sister who is a part-time curate, never wanted any, nor did her husband.
-
By the way, according to this definition, the rape of the wife by the "Christian" husband is permissible.
Bol-lox!
That is an outrage.
-
Bol-lox!
That is an outrage.
Of course it is an outrage, >:( but some nasty turds will find an excuse for anything, especially the Bible, which is open to a myriad interpretations.
-
Also, in days gone by, many people had little idea about what constituted rape, it was beyond their imagination. It was the sort of thing that happened in dark alleys by strangers and reported in the paper but not by people they knew and marital rape was unheard of. There is awareness now that rape is a violent act which causes terror and pain regardless of circumstances.
-
Also, in days gone by, many people had little idea about what constituted rape, it was beyond their imagination. It was the sort of thing that happened in dark alleys by strangers and reported in the paper but not by people they knew and marital rape was unheard of. There is awareness now that rape is a violent act which causes terror and pain regardless of circumstances.
Sadly it would appear marital rape is more common than any other.
-
Do you have data to support that, floo? I'm not disputing it, I honestly don't know.
I'd have thought 'date rape' was more common and rape involving people who had previously been in a relationship.
-
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
So my mother is a pervert according to you.
You Christians need to get some better arguments than this tired old offensive nonsense.
-
So my mother is a pervert according to you.
You Christians need to get some better arguments than this tired old offensive nonsense.
To be fair not all Christians see it that way, only a minority, imo.
-
Bol-lox!
That is an outrage.
Indeed, Brownie, it would be an outrage, but such an inference can logically be drawn from Spud's rather narrow parameters concerning the aim of sexual intercourse. If he wishes to broaden his definition to include a few provisos, all well and good. I don't think he's done so, so far.
-
He hasn't really thought about it, can't connect with the subject on an emotional level.
-
I do not want to procreate every time I have sex.
Do you?
So it does not have just one purpose at all, and you are wrong!
It is a means to and end...pregnancy.
In that it is the only natural way of procreating.
If you abstain you don't get pregnant.
The mouth is for speaking and it is the means for getting food to the stomach.
Because you use your mouth for other things does not mean it was designed for those things.
Somethings were created/designed to be used by the mouth.
However the natural functions are speech, eating and breathing.
-
Sass were your fingers designed to type on a computer keyboard, or your eyes designed to look at the pixels on the screen. Of course they weren't.
Stop posting meaningless tripe.
-
It is a means to and end...pregnancy.
In that it is the only natural way of procreating.
If you abstain you don't get pregnant.
The mouth is for speaking and it is the means for getting food to the stomach.
Because you use your mouth for other things does not mean it was designed for those things.
Somethings were created/designed to be used by the mouth.
However the natural functions are speech, eating and breathing.
YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ::)
-
The mouth is for speaking and it is the means for getting food to the stomach.
Because you use your mouth for other things does not mean it was designed for those things.
Somethings were created/designed to be used by the mouth.
However the natural functions are speech, eating and breathing.
So it is a sin to kiss anybody.
-
So it is a sin to kiss anybody.
don't encourage her , it hurts my eyes.
-
Sass were your fingers designed to type on a computer keyboard, or your eyes designed to look at the pixels on the screen. Of course they weren't.
Stop posting meaningless tripe.
Sassy
Hero Member
*****
Re: Evangelical extremist?
« Reply #424 on: January 14, 2017, 10:20:16 PM »
Quote from: BeRational on January 09, 2017, 04:00:13 PM
I do not want to procreate every time I have sex.
Do you?
So it does not have just one purpose at all, and you are wrong!
It is a means to and end...pregnancy.
In that it is the only natural way of procreating.
If you abstain you don't get pregnant.
The mouth is for speaking and it is the means for getting food to the stomach.
Because you use your mouth for other things does not mean it was designed for those things.
Somethings were created/designed to be used by the mouth.
However the natural functions are speech, eating and breathing.
Nothing tripe or meaningless about it. The facts in my post and the facts that without fingers or eyes the computer board or screen would not exist. Without sex and children that come from it, no fingers or eyes would exist.
Argue a valid point if you can find one but don't resort to uneducated drivel which comes solely from the fact you cannot stand the truth and the factual evidence being correct in my post.
Even your reply fell when the truth is told. Why? Why is it you cannot stand the truth?
-
So it is a sin to kiss anybody.
Is it a sin to eat, breath or speak?
So how do you substantiate making such a stupid remark?
Go back to sleep till you can put your brain into gear before posting a reply. :)
-
don't encourage her , it hurts my eyes.
Well try putting your brain into gear before opening them.
Might be able to avoid your embarrassment at being so wrong all the time.
-
Why is it you cannot stand the truth?
No Sass
I'm quite happy to be uncertain of the truth in some situations, unlike those who are so convinced by their own beliefs that they cannot conceive that sometimes they are misguided by their own thought processes, such as they are.
-
No Sass
I'm quite happy to be uncertain of the truth in some situations, unlike those who are so convinced by their own beliefs that they cannot conceive that sometimes they are misguided by their own thought processes, such as they are.
A lot of people can't cope with uncertainty. Religion is a very good way of managing that, not just around truth but aroundvthe future, because God loves the believer and so whatever happens there's a heavenly happy ending. There's also the belief that certain prayers and saints can keep believers safe - a superstition that can and does lead to OCD. In fact people with OCD are often asked to suspend their religious practices until they are in recovery.
-
I like doubt - or uncertainty. Whenever it has come along I welcome it, and use it, not as a stumbling block, but a stepping stone on the road. It has helped me deepen my understanding and the nature of my relationship with God.
-
I like doubt - or uncertainty. Whenever it has come along I welcome it, and use it, not as a stumbling block, but a stepping stone on the road. It has helped me deepen my understanding and the nature of my relationship with God.
But surely you do that with two certainties - that God loves you and that God will save you.
-
Rhi; The certanties of God's love and salvation? According to Scripture, God loves everyone - whether they or we accept Him or not. And the salvation He promised is dependant on our accepting Him for who He is and what He has done. Even though I accept the former, and am confident of the latter, there are always times when questions arise - the "WWJD" moments (sorry about the American). That's where taking a leap of faith in the full assurance and confidence that someone's holding my hand helps.
-
Rhi; The certanties of God's love and salvation? According to Scripture, God loves everyone - whether they or we accept Him or not. And the salvation He promised is dependant on our accepting Him for who He is and what He has done. Even though I accept the former, and am confident of the latter, there are always times when questions arise - the "WWJD" moments (sorry about the American). That's where taking a leap of faith in the full assurance and confidence that someone's holding my hand helps.
So Gods love and forgiveness is in fact conditional as you point out.
Some Christians think it is unconditional.
Who is right?
-
BR, you wrote: "So Gods love and forgiveness is in fact conditional as you point out." No, God loves the world.....(John 3:16 and all that) What we do with that love is up to us. Forgiveness from God is guaranteed on repentance - but the repentance bit's our part in the equation. "Some Christians think it is unconditional. Who is right?" If Christians think God's love is unconditional, then they're bang on. If they think forgiveness without repentance is a given, then they are not. Repentance is more than saying sorry, though. It's being sorry, meaning it and living it.
-
BR, you wrote: "So Gods love and forgiveness is in fact conditional as you point out." No, God loves the world.....(John 3:16 and all that) What we do with that love is up to us. Forgiveness from God is guaranteed on repentance - but the repentance bit's our part in the equation. "Some Christians think it is unconditional. Who is right?" If Christians think God's love is unconditional, then they're bang on. If they think forgiveness without repentance is a given, then they are not. Repentance is more than saying sorry, though. It's being sorry, meaning it and living it.
So your god will punish those that use their brain, and honestly conclude that the evidence for his existence has not met the burden of proof?
Is that a loving god?
-
I'm no hellfire preacher, BR. However, from my understanding, God will never force Himself on us (some of the more "enthusiastic" of His followers might have a go at doing it, though). He's made it up to us whether to accept or reject Him and the salvation He offers. If we reject Him, then that's our choice. There are many metaphors for hell used in Scripture; the sulphur pit with optional pitchforks on the side is but one. However, John (presumably the Gospel writer, also wrote this bit - and if you take it with John 3:16-17, it works. It's from his first letter.: "And this is the record; that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who has the Son has life: he who does not have the Son of God does not have eternal life"
-
Eternal life is not something in which I am interested.
-
I'm no hellfire preacher, BR. However, from my understanding, God will never force Himself on us (some of the more "enthusiastic" of His followers might have a go at doing it, though). He's made it up to us whether to accept or reject Him and the salvation He offers. If we reject Him, then that's our choice. There are many metaphors for hell used in Scripture; the sulphur pit with optional pitchforks on the side is but one. However, John (presumably the Gospel writer, also wrote this bit - and if you take it with John 3:16-17, it works. It's from his first letter.: "And this is the record; that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who has the Son has life: he who does not have the Son of God does not have eternal life"
So, it's believe in me (even though you see no evidence to do so) or I will kill you.
A bit like a mafia boss saying pay me, or your business burns.
-
If God is all loving, as Christians assert, BR, why would He impose an eternity with Him on those who don't want it? He oofers a choice.
-
If God is all loving, as Christians assert, BR, why would He impose an eternity with Him on those who don't want it? He oofers a choice.
Because it is a psycho!
-
If God is all loving, as Christians assert, BR, why would He impose an eternity with Him on those who don't want it? He oofers a choice.
At what point do the choices run out?
And you must know by now that losing my faith was never a choice. Time was when I would have done anything to get it back. God never showed.
-
At what point do the choices run out?
And you must know by now that losing my faith was never a choice. Time was when I would have done anything to get it back. God never showed.
I honestly don't know, Rhi.
Posting some theology stuff which bored the pants off me while I tried to fall asleep at the lecture won't help you.
All I can say is that I consciously rejected all religion....till I made a decision for Christ.
That worked for me?
Why? God knows!
I've a member of my district - that's an area of the town whose church members are 'supervised' by an elder * - who is a retired physics lecturer.
He lost his teenage faith at Uni, and continued happily as atheist for the next forty years, till one Friday at a golf course something clicked.
Now He's ''back' - and committed.
(Even though spme would be happier, given his inability to carry a tune in a bucket, were he to sing somewhere else).
I know the phrase 'God's timing is perfect' is trite.
Sometimes, though, it's true as well.
* = normally drinking heavily caffinated tea, eating toxic buns and discussing the telly, constitutes 'supervision' in some instances. Part of the elders' kit should include Gaviscon and Immodium.
-
This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.
That's all part of the same debate.
The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.
You think that's a fact - I don't see that sex has 'a purpose', it's something that's evolved which has an outcome that served as a survival benefit at certain points in history, in certain creatures. What 'purpose' it might have in this day and age is whatever purpose we put it to.
People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.
Tellingly, though, you want to write the laws so that people who don't sign up to the Christian church are also obliged to follow its tenets.
O.
-
It is a means to and end...pregnancy.
In that it is the only natural way of procreating.
If you abstain you don't get pregnant.
However, if you do it carefully, you can still have all of the fun (hopefully) and none of the pregnancies.
The mouth is for speaking and it is the means for getting food to the stomach.
And for detecting bacteria and toxins... and for preliminarily combatting invading organisms... and for recycling water expelled from the lungs during breathing... The human body is a marvellously complex, multi-purpose piece of equipment.
Because you use your mouth for other things does not mean it was designed for those things.
Or, indeed, that it was designed at all...
Somethings were created/designed to be used by the mouth.
Oboes (particularly, I've heard, pink ones).
However the natural functions are speech, eating and breathing.
Ah, the naturalistic fallacy. Tell me, Sass, how do you get the keys to work on your keyboard, surely your fingers weren't 'designed' for typing?
O.
-
If God is all loving, as Christians assert, BR, why would He impose an eternity with Him on those who don't want it? He oofers a choice.
I like the idea of eternal life.
I am all for it.
-
I like the idea of eternal life.
I am all for it.
Why?
-
Why?
I like being alive.
Don't you?
-
I like being alive.
Don't you?
I wouldn't like to be alive for all eternity, that would be awful, imo! This life is enough for me.
-
I wouldn't like to be alive for all eternity, that would be awful, imo! This life is enough for me.
Each to their own.
I would like to keep doing what I like doing
-
Each to their own.
I would like to keep doing what I like doing
But if an afterlife exists you can't assume you would be the same person you are in this life.
-
The 'life' Jesus offers us is better translated "Life in all its' fullness' than 'eternal life'.
-
But if an afterlife exists you can't assume you would be the same person you are in this life.
I did not mention after life, I just said eternal life as it is now
-
The 'life' Jesus offers us is better translated "Life in all its' fullness' than 'eternal life'.
Is this conditionally offers?
-
Tellingly, though, you want to write the laws so that people who don't sign up to the Christian church are also obliged to follow its tenets.
e.g. http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12928.msg653816#msg653816
-
The 'life' Jesus offers us is better translated "Life in all its' fullness' than 'eternal life'.
Yes, that would make more sense.
-
I did not mention after life, I just said eternal life as it is now
That would be awful, imo.
-
That would be awful, imo.
Then you must be a little odd.
Do you want to live today and tomorrow?
I just want tomorrow forever.
-
Then you must be a little odd.
Do you want to live today and tomorrow?
I just want tomorrow forever.
You might now, but not later eg. with a disintegrating body and mind.
-
You might now, but not later eg. with a disintegrating body and mind.
No I don't want that.
I want the same as I am now forever.
It it too much to ask?
-
Then you must be a little odd.
Do you want to live today and tomorrow?
I just want tomorrow forever.
I want to go on for a while longer, but certainly not forever.
-
I want to go on for a while longer, but certainly not forever.
Ok.
I would want to go on as I am now forever.
I bet most people would feel that way.
-
No I don't want that.
I want the same as I am now forever.
It it too much to ask?
That doesn't seem to be on offer.
-
That doesn't seem to be on offer.
That's not my problem. I am just saying that it what I would like.
It's not going to happen, but it's still what I would like.
-
Ok.
I would want to go on as I am now forever.
I bet most people would feel that way.
Do they? Anyway this discussion is way off topic, so I will leave it there.
-
That's not my problem. I am just saying that it what I would like.
It's not going to happen, but it's still what I would like.
I want to keep changing and learning and growing as a person. I'd be bored staying like this forever. And I hate being bored more than anything.
-
Yes, that would make more sense.
Agreed, except of course that the person called Jesus cannot "offer" anything, having died around 2,000 years ago.
-
Ok.
I would want to go on as I am now forever.
I bet most people would feel that way.
I bet they wouldn't.
A lot would depend on how they are now.
However, whatever we want, life as it is now is not going to go on forever and that has to be accepted.
What is important is to make the most of what we have in the here and now.
Rhiannon: I want to keep changing and learning and growing as a person. I'd be bored staying like this forever. And I hate being bored more than anything.
That sounds about right.
-
I bet they wouldn't.
A lot would depend on how they are now.
However, whatever we want, life as it is now is not going to go on forever and that has to be accepted.
What is important is to make the most of what we have in the here and now.
Rhiannon: I want to keep changing and learning and growing as a person. I'd be bored staying like this forever. And I hate being bored more than anything.
That sounds about right.
I bet most people would want to live forever in a healthy body never ageing or wearing out.
It cannot happen, but if you do not want to keep living, will you make the end of the week, and why bother.
-
I bet most people would want to live forever in a healthy body never ageing or wearing out.
It cannot happen, but if you do not want to keep living, will you make the end of the week, and why bother.
And a big welcome to the false dichotomy!
-
And a big welcome to the false dichotomy!
no its not!
It is an unrealistic desire but a desire nonetheless
-
no its not!
It is an unrealistic desire but a desire nonetheless
I didn't say it wasn't your desire, so repeating that is irrelevant. It's a false dichotomy because you are suggesting not wanting to live forever means not wanting to live till the day after tomorrow.
-
I bet most people would want to live forever in a healthy body never ageing or wearing out.
It cannot happen, but if you do not want to keep living, will you make the end of the week, and why bother.
That's very extreme thinking, BeR. Unless life is terrible I would think we all want to live as long as we can.
Wanting to hang onto life forever is a different matter and it smacks of being afraid of death.
-
That's very extreme thinking, BeR. Unless life is terrible I would think we all want to live as long as we can.
Wanting to hang onto life forever is a different matter and it smacks of being afraid of death.
We are programmed not to want death.
All I am saying is that I like being alive and would just want it to continue.
-
It's good that you like life, BeR, in fact it's marvellous; hopefully it will continue for a long time.
-
We are programmed not to want death.
All I am saying is that I like being alive and would just want it to continue.
no, you were saying that not wanting to live forever meant not wanting to live till the day after tomorrow. That is a false dichotomy.
-
And of course Spud us now calling every woman having sex past the menopause who has sex a pervert. But it's on, because it's a fact because he says it is and he has tiny hands
And since the 'function' of drinking is to keep you from dying of thirst, them having a nice cuppa just for the fun of it is a dirty dirty filthy perversiong
It will certainly make you need to pee, if that's what you mean... Sex is for the transmission of life, but only sex with someone of the opposite sex. Making love to a woman is the same act when she is fertile as when she is not.
-
Sex is for the transmission of life, but only sex with someone of the opposite sex. Making love to a woman is the same act when she is fertile as when she is not.
Bit of a contradiction in that paragraph.
Lots of of people over a very long period of time have seen it.
You appear not to have done.
All the same; I'll give you some time to identify it ;)
-
Shaker,
I think this phrase, "but only sex with someone of the opposite sex" overrides the apparent contradiction in the paragraph.
-
I think you're forgetting the "transmission of life" bit ;)
-
I think you're forgetting the "transmission of life" bit ;)
I was primarily responding to the claim that if gay sx is perverted, then so is post-menopausal sx. I pointed out that heterosexual sx is the same action whether or not the woman happens to be fertile. Thus it is not a perverted action. You wouldn't say that sx when the woman isn't ovulating is perverted. So neither is it after she stops ovulating.
I think you are forgetting that although people want sx without having children, the desire for it is built in so as to maximize the likelihood of pregnancy.
-
I was primarily responding to the claim that if gay sx is perverted, then so is post-menopausal sx.
Why? I haven't made and wouldn't make such a claim. That falls to your lot.
I pointed out that heterosexual sx is the same action whether or not the woman happens to be fertile. Thus it is not a perverted action. You wouldn't say that sx when the woman isn't ovulating is perverted. So neither is it after she stops ovulating.
I wouldn't say either were perverted, but then of course, I don't say that gay "sx" is perverted either. And isn't "sx" between two gay people "the same action" each time?
I think you are forgetting that although people want sx without having children, the desire for it is built in so as to maximize the likelihood of pregnancy.
Except we're not mindless slaves to reproductive biology any more, are we?