Thread: "Lord" Carey and the Jews and the Nazis Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028660
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
A so-called "Lord" of the Realm has come out with the idea that being anti-gay marriage puts one in the same place as the Jews were in Nazi Germany. Having people loudly disagree with one's homophobic ranting is apparently as dangerous as having a yellow star put on your shirt so that people could beat you up and steal your possessions before they send you to die in a concentration camp

Has this so-called "Lord" been taking the Kool-Aid of the American right wing? His mind seems to be somewhat messed up.

I can't imagine that he is helping the cause he claims to espouse.

I wonder if he has ever actually spoken to someone he recognises as being gay.

I'll leave the further description to Martin Robbins in today's Grauniad.

Edited to add that this may take a distinctly Hellish turn, so it may end up going there. I just wanted to see if there is ANY defense of this person whose attitudes I take to be indefensible.

[ 10. October 2012, 00:50: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
For some reason it's become a popular idea that it's worse to accurately describe someone as a bigot than it is to actually be a bigot. I would have thought it was the other way around, but YMMV.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Sadly the CofE has people who'd like the next Archbishop of Canterbury to take a stand on biblical matters, just like Lord Carey did when he was ABC. Personally, I do not want to be a member of that sort of church, but I wasn't a member of the CofE when Carey was ABC.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
To be fair to the man, I don't recall him being such a complete twit when he was Archbishop. There was even a point at which he annoyed the Tory right by comparing the Holy Family in a Christmas sermon to asylum seekers.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I found one of his letters to the church / communion when I wandered into a church in the 90s, read it and wandered straight back out again for several more years. From memory, the message was about marriage, but I can't find what and why on-line. It was couched in such terms that I remember thinking if this church was that uncharitable I didn't want to be a part of it.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Edited to add that this may take a distinctly Hellish turn, so it may end up going there. I just wanted to see if there is ANY defense of this person whose attitudes I take to be indefensible.
The most charitable explanation I can think of is this:

Lord Carey is not a hateful or malicious man. He is a member of a tribe of Christian evangelicals, and feels a strong loyalty to the values of that tribe. Two of the things that define those values, and thus represent an important part of his self-identity, are a commitment to the authority of scripture traditionally interpreted, and conservative sexual ethics (AKA ‘family values'). A large part of the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a result of the erosion of those values. Being against gay marriage is, in the minds of people like Lord Carey, inextricably bound up with being "for" a traditional view of marriage, commitment and family life, "for" a stable society in which Christian belief is respected, "for" an orthodox and obedient approach to the Bible, "against" an attitude to sex and relationships which has no moral grounding, "against" sexual abuse, teenage pregnancies, abortions and STDs, "against" a society in which faith is mocked and marginalised.

He isn't thinking just about gay marriage. I doubt he gives a moment's thought to the scandalous fact that Canadians, and Argentines, and Icelanders can marry members of their own sex. If the same thing were to happen in the UK, after the first month, I doubt he'd lose any sleep over it at all. What he is doing is ‘making a stand for Christian values'. He cares deeply that Christian values aren't being given the weight that they used to be in legislation, and genuinely fears what might happen to society without that traditional source of morality.

And therefore he isn't conscious of having any personally hostile animus against gay people. He doesn't hate them. He doesn't want to hurt them. It has not occurred to him what an incredibly mean and shitty thing it is to campaign against a minority group's right to get married, because he knows that he isn't a mean and shitty person. He probably is genuinely hurt when people call him a bigot. He hears that as an accusation of acting out of motives of hate, and that isn't at all how he sees what he is doing. The bollocks that he is talking about Nazis is a reaction both to that hurt and to the fear that the tribe from which he takes his identity is being criticised in terms that would exclude them from the debate and (if the trend continues) from participation in the polite, traditional, stable social establishment which he thinks he is fighting for.

That hurt is really all he has to express. There is no good argument on his side. There isn't the ghost of a reason, in a liberal democracy whose laws expressly forbid discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, for denying to gays the rights and recognitions that are granted to straights. The only argument he might advance is the explicitly theocratic one that the law should embody revealed Christian ethics, and he knows that in the UK that's a lost cause. If the Church were to fight on that ground, it would lose, and only increase the erosion of the tribal values which Lord Carey desperately wants to protect. What he wants is for society to privilege heterosexual married relationships because his faith tells him that they are special, but he can't actually come out and say that because he knows that's not a good enough reason any more. So all he has is a desperate sort of whining about his Church's right to be heard, and a pathetic plea that he not be dismissed as a bigot.


I said that's the most charitable view I could think of. It is. I still think it's contemptible.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A so-called "Lord" of the Realm has come out with the idea that being anti-gay marriage puts one in the same place as the Jews were in Nazi Germany. Having people loudly disagree with one's homophobic ranting is apparently as dangerous as having a yellow star put on your shirt so that people could beat you up and steal your possessions before they send you to die in a concentration camp
Give the man some credit. It takes skill and talent to actually start a debate with Godwin's Law.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
His positioning rings familiar bells this side of the Pond. When various self-described Christian folks want to post, say, the 10 commandments in a courthouse and get shot down for violating the establishment clause, they tend to claim they're being discriminated against.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Give the man some credit. It takes skill and talent to actually start a debate with Godwin's Law.
And just to be completely fair, let's also consider that he might be quoted out of context.

In one report;

quote:
However, he rejected suggestions that the true “bigots” were those who advocated gay marriage and would not listen to legitimate concerns of religious groups who disagreed.
“Let’s have a sensible debate about this, not call people names,” he said. “Let’s remember that the Jews in Nazi Germany, what started it all against them was when they started being called names. That was the first stage towards that totalitarian state.”


In other words he could be read as either saying that his own side ought not to call the others bigots, or at least that neither side ought to be calling each other bigots. But not necessarily that either side is in the position of the Jews or the position of Nazi Germany.

Of course the recourse to the comparison is crass and he'd have been better off simply saying "let's not call each other bigots" if that was what he meant.

And of course he's wrong, but that's another point.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Eliab, I think your analysis is absolutely right. In fact, up and down the country the evangelical churches are filled with people who put tribal loyalty (surely the besetting sin of many a religious grouping, but especially of evos) above charity, common sense and, very often, the Bible itself. That is a tragedy, but there lies within it the seeds of hope, because these people genuinely are decent people, who just have never considered what it would be like to walk in the shoes of GLBT people, often people of faith themselves. I say a seed of hope, because, by God's grace, one day the penny will drop, and they will see the "other" as being really just like themselves, trying to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sadly the CofE has people who'd like the next Archbishop of Canterbury to take a stand on biblical matters, just like Lord Carey did when he was ABC. Personally, I do not want to be a member of that sort of church, but I wasn't a member of the CofE when Carey was ABC.
I wouldn't mind Carey or others taking a stand on biblical matters or on a biblical basis, if they weren't so narrowly selective about the issues they are concerned about and the scripture they quote.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In other words he could be read as either saying that his own side ought not to call the others bigots, or at least that neither side ought to be calling each other bigots. But not necessarily that either side is in the position of the Jews or the position of Nazi Germany.
Hmm, but there's no quoted speech in that Torygraph report that contradicts the plain and obvious meaning of his words as condemning anyone who dares to call him a bigot for being bigoted. All we have is the Torygraph's own description (or spin, if you prefer) of what he was talking about at the time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the first paragraph has a tenuous basis in fact, or if the context of the two quoted paragraphs was very different, but they've been stuck together to imply some sort of connection that wasn't there.

I'm a little cautious of jumping off the deep end about this, because the reported comments that I've heard aren't entirely clear, but I'm not sure how far I'd trust the Torygraph report as a balanced and impartial treatment.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I agree with Eliab's analysis of Cary and his tribe. The thing is, he could take the position instead that there are all kinds of state-sanctioned "marriage" that do not constitute what the Church (in his view of it) views as true marriage by the Christian standard. He could more legitimately, if he were so inclined, take a stance against the Church recognising or solemnising such state-sanctioned unions, whilst himself keeping out of the matter in the purely civil sphere. If he exercises a vote in the Lords, he might legitimately simply abstain from voting on the civil law in this instance.

What I detest about the con-evos on this issue and in general is their insistence on inserting their religious views into the civil domain in an effort to legislate for the population as a whole.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Eliab's view makes a lot of sense to me. A lot of the evangelicals I know who would take the same line as him seem to me to be kind, caring individuals, not hateful bigots. They have a genuine blind spot in that they cannot see beyond the traditional biblical interpretation that they have been taught in regards to homosexuality and they want to uphold it out of faithfulness to God and his word (as they perceive it) not out of hatred. Granted there may be conservative evangelicals out there who actively hate homosexuals but I have never knowingly met one in the UK context that I am most familiar with. Perhaps I just know a lot of nice people...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Not hating is not good enough. Only the foolish think all those opposed to gay marriage hate gay people. And only the foolish think in so starkly black and white terms. There is an infinite gradation between real hate and loving acceptance.

Btw, Cary's cry of "help, help! I'm being repressed" is ludicrous. And, regardless of intent, smacks of typical tactics of shutting down opposition rather than addressing the issues. Not feeling the love, misguided or otherwise.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Eliab's view makes a lot of sense to me. A lot of the evangelicals I know who would take the same line as him seem to me to be kind, caring individuals, not hateful bigots.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. There was a post over at Slacktivist dealing with pretty much this exact point titled "You can’t deny people their rights and be nice about it". The title pretty much sums it up, but here's a longer excerpt.

quote:
I thought of Ruehl’s performance, and of Dianna’s post, when I read this self-serving attempt to be the “nice” bigot by Halee Gray Scott at Christianity Today’s her•meneutics blog, “I Am Not Charles Worley: The Plea of a Christian Who Opposes Gay Marriage.”

Scott wants you to understand that she’s not at all like the infamous homophobic preacher Worley. She’s totally different.

Worley wants to deny LGBT people their basic civil rights and legal equality because he hates them. Scott wants to deny LGBT people their basic civil rights and legal equality for other reasons.

See? See how very different they are? Same result. Same vote. Same fundamental discrimination enshrined in law. But Worley is mean. Scott is nice.

And Scott has had it up to here with people not recognizing the extreme importance of that distinction:

quote:
I am not Charles Worley, and I’m tired of others, especially fellow Christians, assuming that because I’m opposed to gay marriage that I’m hateful like him. It’s time to extend a hermeneutic of grace to each other — especially to fellow Christians who still do not favor gay marriage and believe that homosexuality is not God’s intent for human sexuality. …
Scott shares Worley’s hateful goals, but not his hateful sentiments, so how dare anyone compare them?
I think this is an important distinction. While I'm sure those opposed to equality under the law prefer to think of themselves as "nice" and invest a lot of time and effort into getting others to perceive them as "kind, caring individuals", supporting legal discrimination is not "nice", "kind", or "caring". At best it can be described as a studied indifference to the problems of other people.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Although I agree that for those on the receiving end it makes no material difference, I think motivation is relevant when assessing people's actions.

Someone who opposes equality under the law because it is their firm conviction that sex outside male/female marriage is wrong in God's eyes may well be misguided and wrong but their motivation could be perceived as good. Their actions spring from a desire to be faithful to God and a genuine conviction that what is best for people is for society to be organized along the lines of what they perceive to be God's Laws.

(Please do not jump to assume I agree with this. I am living in a society where I am very much a minority and would not want to see the majority's religious laws imposed. And this experience has made me much more wary of Christians trying to impose 'religious laws' on a society that doesn't generally hold to the same view.)

I think some of these people are actually quite conflicted over this. They don't want to be unkind to people but they feel that they will have failed God in some way by compromising with the pressure of the prevailing culture if they don't keep to this view. I don't think name calling will change people's views. I don't know what the answer is, all I know is that for myself the change of view has come through a combination of hearing different view points, particularly of interpretations of scripture, interacting with and listening to the views of GLBT Christians and a general midlife crisis type rethinking of a whole load of my faith/theology.

I think people who are generally kind and caring but have simply not thought through the real life implications of their views on this issue are more likely to be amenable to a change of viewpoint through discussion and interaction than those who hold a deep seated hatred. For those who's underlying motivation is good, they may be able to find a way forward which continues to honor that good motivation even as the content of their views changes.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
What completely mystifies me is that so many conservatives can't see that gays asking for marriage IS a conservative position.

LIBERAL gays just say "Marriage? Pfft. Who wants that stupid outmoded heterosexual institution?"

Some conservatives do get it, I have to say. On several occasions I've seen conservative supporters of gay marriage who understand precisely this point. I recall there was a prominent Republican lawyer involved in the Proposition 8 case in California. And the best expression I've seen here in Australia is from former Senator Amanda Vanstone earlier this year:

quote:
The next point I would make to conservatives – if you believe as I do you should try and look after yourself, be independent and be an individual, then you are going to have to do that with others. You’re going to have to have relationships and admit dependence on other people. That’s what people do when they get married. They say ‘We are going to be dependent on each other’. I think conservatives should welcome more people openly saying ‘I’m going to have a life relationship with this person, we will be dependent on each other, we are going to ask things of each other instead of asking from the State’. I think conservatives should welcome more recognition of interdependence. That’s what society is, otherwise it’s just individuals. I believe in individualism but society has to be more than a bunch of separate individuals and we need to encourage people to build these interdependences and recognise them.

 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Although I agree that for those on the receiving end it makes no material difference, I think motivation is relevant when assessing people's actions.

Someone who opposes equality under the law because it is their firm conviction that sex outside male/female marriage is wrong in God's eyes may well be misguided and wrong but their motivation could be perceived as good.
I've never regarded " . . . but it's my religion!" as a sufficient justification for discriminatory laws. An additional problem is that accepting this dodge implicitly lumps together people like Lord Carey and Halee Gray Scott with folks like Charles Worley and Fred Phelps, who are also motivated by their religious beliefs. And isn't that conflation exactly what Carey and Scott find so objectionable?

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think some of these people are actually quite conflicted over this. They don't want to be unkind to people but they feel that they will have failed God in some way by compromising with the pressure of the prevailing culture if they don't keep to this view. I don't think name calling will change people's views.
As you pointed out, for those on the receiving end it's not the "views" that are problematic, it's the actions. Most unpopular minorities tend to prefer a situation where they have the full protection of the law even if they're disliked over a situation where they're generally liked but live as second-class citizens. In pragmatic terms gaining legal equality is often a lot more achievable than shifting the views of religious zealots.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
The Daily Mash has a good take on this.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Well, the Holocaust survivors in the Daily Mash article seem to have forgotten, conveniently, the number of gays who perished in the Holocaust.

When I saw the title of this thread, my initial reaction was, 'Oh good. Carey has become a dead horse.'

But he is still alive - but still not very bright.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
Leo, I think it's a pisstake. (The Daily Mash, that is. Carey, unfortunately, wasn't taking the piss.)

[ 10. October 2012, 16:39: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
This article has more to say of relevance.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
The Daily Mash is indeed a piss take, showing what an idiot Carey is being. Leo, I think your link was included in the OP, although I could be wrong.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The Daily Mash is indeed a piss take, showing what an idiot Carey is being.
Very effectively, I thought.

I have to admit the Torygraph doesn't really exonerate Carey for the reasons given. Whatever the details of what he said (and perhaps there is no accurate record) it seems a most unfortunate comparison.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What completely mystifies me is that so many conservatives can't see that gays asking for marriage IS a conservative position.

LIBERAL gays just say "Marriage? Pfft. Who wants that stupid outmoded heterosexual institution?"

Some conservatives do get it, I have to say. On several occasions I've seen conservative supporters of gay marriage who understand precisely this point. I recall there was a prominent Republican lawyer involved in the Proposition 8 case in California. And the best expression I've seen here in Australia is from former Senator Amanda Vanstone earlier this year:

quote:
The next point I would make to conservatives – if you believe as I do you should try and look after yourself, be independent and be an individual, then you are going to have to do that with others. You’re going to have to have relationships and admit dependence on other people. That’s what people do when they get married. They say ‘We are going to be dependent on each other’. I think conservatives should welcome more people openly saying ‘I’m going to have a life relationship with this person, we will be dependent on each other, we are going to ask things of each other instead of asking from the State’. I think conservatives should welcome more recognition of interdependence. That’s what society is, otherwise it’s just individuals. I believe in individualism but society has to be more than a bunch of separate individuals and we need to encourage people to build these interdependences and recognise them.
Interestingly, that parallels a speech made by David Cameron, our Conservative Prime Minister, a couple of years back: "I support gay marriage not in spite of the fact that I'm a Conservative, but because I'm a Conservative."
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I've long thought that anyone who wants to reduce spending and the size of government ought to be interested in promoting long-term committed relationships between anyone who freely chooses them. Particularly political and religious conservatives.

Just saying that you don't want someone else to have rights because by doing so would degrade the right that you have just sounds like [Waterworks]

Nobody said you have to like it, Lord Carey et al., but stop moaning about it. Who really cares what you think about the rights of people you-don't-agree-with anyway?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I just don't get it.

"My religion says I shouldn't do X. Therefore no-one should be allowed to do it because it's a Bad Thing."

Thank fuck we don't use that reasoning most of the time - I'm quite keen on pork.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Lord Carey is a bitter old man who wishes he had even half the balls he's apparently discovered now, when he was once in office. He broods over the fact that other people are doing the job now and they aren't doing what he wants, so every now and then he throws all his toys out of his pram like a toddler on a bad acid trip with severe paranoia and self-confidence issues. It's pathetic. He should learn again what the word 'professionalism' means because he has clearly forgotten. He had his day, and now he has to learn what every other blessed human already knows - life moves on; sometimes without you, and sometimes without even caring who you once were. Get the fuck over it.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have to admit the Torygraph doesn't really exonerate Carey for the reasons given. Whatever the details of what he said (and perhaps there is no accurate record) it seems a most unfortunate comparison.
I was involved in an exchange in Twitter yesterday on this subject. Tom Chivers, normally very sensible, wrote a blog for the Torygraph saying much what you did above, quoting from the Torygraph report. But as I said here, the quote doesn't support their interpretation (although it doesn't refute it either), Chivers has no additional information, and no other source has reported his comments in this way.

Carey usually publishes transcripts of his speeches on his official website, but this one's yet to appear. Until it does, the Torygraph account seems odd and incongruous.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
And that's on top of the obvious incongruity of "anyone who engaged in namecalling is a murderous Nazi".
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The most charitable explanation I can think of is this:

Lord Carey is not a hateful or malicious man. He is a member of a tribe of Christian evangelicals, and feels a strong loyalty to the values of that tribe. Two of the things that define those values, and thus represent an important part of his self-identity, are a commitment to the authority of scripture traditionally interpreted, and conservative sexual ethics (AKA ‘family values'). A large part of the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a result of the erosion of those values. Being against gay marriage is, in the minds of people like Lord Carey, inextricably bound up with being "for" a traditional view of marriage, commitment and family life, "for" a stable society in which Christian belief is respected, "for" an orthodox and obedient approach to the Bible,
That is charitable.

Having said that I am from this evangelical tribe with a commitment to the authority of scriptures and family values, I am for all these things mentioned.

However as far as family values are concerned I see promiscuity as the biggest problem. Marriage is a great thing, I believe that family values will be strengthened if it is available to all, whatever their orientation.

Going back a year or two,
Carey ordained two gay bishops. He was in favour of Jeffrey John becoming a bishop. George Carey is not against Gay people, provided they are celibate.

He is not a bigot, he is a traditionalist.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Going back a year or two, Carey ordained two gay bishops. He was in favour of Jeffrey John becoming a bishop. George Carey is not against Gay people, provided they are celibate.

He is not a bigot, he is a traditionalist.
So he likes gay people who follow orders and know their place? What a mensch! [Roll Eyes]

Have you considered that the bigot/traditionalist thing isn't so much an either/or divide, but rather a both/and combo set?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Going back a year or two,
Carey ordained two gay bishops. He was in favour of Jeffrey John becoming a bishop. George Carey is not against Gay people, provided they are celibate.

He is not a bigot, he is a traditionalist.
The site you linked to is that of a raving homophobe - I only know that because I quoted from it once and someone rapidly put me right.

As for not being a bigot, merely a tradionalist, he said, "Why does it feel to us that our cultural homeland and identity is being plundered?"

Wasn't that what the Nazis said about the Jews?
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
For the last few years, every time a story like this comes out I think of Sophia Petrillo--a cultural reference which probably means little to Shipmates not raised on US situation comedies.

Suffice it to say she was a character on the TV series "The Golden Girls". The premise was that she had had a very mild stroke, which was not debilitating but removed every filter between her brain and her mouth.

If Lord Carey were just some old codger in a small English village, no one would pay him one bit of notice--beyond a certain pity that he seemed to be getting crankier and crankier in his declining years. Since he is a former Archbishop, though, there will always be someone wanting to put his words in print--especially if they can use him to do a little pot-stirring.

I don't think they are doing Lord Carey any favors. I don't think they are doing the CofE any favors. I don't think they are doing the current Archbishop or the next Archbishop any favors... In fact, it seems to me the only people benefitting from the publication of his rants are the people who sell manufactured news and outrage.

I wish I could make this sound more charitable and less condescending, but I suppose if I'm going to condescend, I might as well own up to it.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
every now and then he throws all his toys out of his pram like a toddler on a bad acid trip with severe paranoia and self-confidence issues.
Here is his intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the current(?) cases of Eweida, Chaplin, Macfarlane and Ladele v. UK if you want to see a good example of hysterical paranoia, e.g.:
quote:
It is, of course, but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a ‘religious bar’ to any employment by Christians.
There is nothing in the intervention about gay marriage or civil partnerships but paragraph 16 touches on bigotry. It's badly written so its meaning is rather unclear, but it seems to be saying that a bigot is not a bigot as long as they are a Christian bigot.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I think someone who says their own religious group should be organised in a particular traditional way can be described accurately as a traditionalist.

And quite honestly, I can't see why any gay person would want to force a church with a homophobic theology to marry them*

But when you are saying that your own theology means that nobody in the whole country - whether they hold your theology or not - should be able to do the thing that you disapprove of (citing, it seems, your own opinion as evidence in court), then I think that can be accurately described as bigotry.

*of course, this becomes much more complex in a denomination with a wide variety of theological views which is the single established church, I understand that.

[ 11. October 2012, 17:47: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Going back a year or two,
Carey ordained two gay bishops. He was in favour of Jeffrey John becoming a bishop. George Carey is not against Gay people, provided they are celibate.

He is not a bigot, he is a traditionalist.
The site you linked to is that of a raving homophobe - I only know that because I quoted from it once and someone rapidly put me right.

As for not being a bigot, merely a tradionalist, he said, "Why does it feel to us that our cultural homeland and identity is being plundered?"

Wasn't that what the Nazis said about the Jews?
OK. Try this site, Carey ordained two bishops he believed to be gay.
BBC
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
of course, this becomes much more complex in a denomination with a wide variety of theological views which is the single established church, I understand that.
What the church asks its congregations to believe is quite clear.
Issues in sexuality - a statement by the House of Bishops 1991.

This is the official stance. It is linked from the House of Bishops web site front page. (link on the right.) It has been there not only when George Carey was Archbishop of Canterbury, but throughout Rowan Williams primacy as well.

George Carey's public views on Homosexuality are consistent with a document produced when he was Archbishop, which he signed, and which is still recommended by the Church of England. No surprises there. So why the accusations of bigotry?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Maybe because "Issues in Sexuality" is an effectively bigoted document?

And that Lord Carey seems to feel that anyone who says so is leading UK society on the primrose path to fascism?
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
George Carey's public views on Homosexuality are consistent with a document produced when he was Archbishop, which he signed, and which is still recommended by the Church of England. No surprises there. So why the accusations of bigotry?
For me that doesn't provide a get out of jail free card for Carey, it means that the official line of the Church of England should get in that jail cell with him.

Basically bigotry is bigotry is bigotry. It is a mindset or action identified as such by the end result. Carey seems to be saying that a secular homophobe and a traditional christian can have exactly the same views about gays and want to give effect to those views in the same way, but whereas the first is a bigot the second is an upstanding follower of the Lord. However, most other people would cry bullshit and say that if it walks like a bigot and quacks like a bigot [Ultra confused] it almost certainly is a bigot.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Basically bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.
Nope. Try again.

All I am seeing here is people saying, "Carey is a bigot because I say he is," and answer criticism of their view with "bigotry is bigotry is bigotry."

We need a better definition of bigotry than this.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
He can be seen as a bigot when he invokes Godwin's Law.

There is nothing in the argument about how gay people can make a public statement about commitment to each other that requires dragging Nazis/Jews in. Attacking the possible expression of disagreement with you is a sign that you have no acceptable argument to present beyond "But I don't like it".

Unless you have a pretty warped idea of actual people who live near you.

[ 12. October 2012, 00:40: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
 
Posted by Aelred of Rievaulx (# 16860) on :
 
Balaam -

pointing us to "Issues in Human Sexuality" does not really help.

I know it has been used as if it were the last word on the subject, and a kind of definitive teaching of the Church of Englad on the sebject. The problem with this view is that the document itself says that it does not think that it is the last word on the subject, nor that everyone in the church will agree with what they write. They simply hope that it will help a process of Christian reflection marked by greater openness and trust on the subject.

What has happened in the last twenty-one years (yes twenty-one) since its publication is that no such process has taken place, but that certain phrases and judgements in Issues have taken on a quasi-official doctrinal status - far greater and far more fixed than their original authors ever intended.

High time to move beyond it.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

We need a better definition of bigotry than this.
Oh, if only we had, say, a web of information, and it was world-wide... and there was some way to search, or as the kids these days say, "Google"... Then we could, perhaps, type "define bigotry" into the Google and get an answer...

big·ot·ry/ˈbigətrē/
Noun:
Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

And because I know someone's going to kick up a fuss,

tol·er·ance/ˈtälərəns/
Noun: The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with: "religious tolerance"

[ 12. October 2012, 03:55: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
A bit off-topic, but genuine question: why does the OP start,
quote:
A so-called "Lord" of the Realm ...
and why is 'Lord' in the title in inverted commas? To me it suggests that Lord Carey is not really a lord, but he is, surely?

M.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I suspect the intention is to suggest he is not acting in a manner befitting a Lord.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What the church asks its congregations to believe is quite clear.
Issues in sexuality - a statement by the House of Bishops 1991.

This is the official stance. It is linked from the House of Bishops web site front page. (link on the right.) It has been there not only when George Carey was Archbishop of Canterbury, but throughout Rowan Williams primacy as well.

George Carey's public views on Homosexuality are consistent with a document produced when he was Archbishop, which he signed, and which is still recommended by the Church of England. No surprises there. So why the accusations of bigotry?
Well I don't think this document accurately describes the variety of opinion in the Anglican church, so that for a start can be seen to be something from one corner of the church imposed on the rest. The matter is clearly not settled and a variety of views and behaviours are tolerated.

Second, even if the process had been exhaustive and everyone had either agreed on a settled view or left the church, that only applies to the Anglican Church.

Bigotry implies taking a minority opinion from within the Anglican church and arguing that it should apply to the whole country.

As I said above, I don't have a particular problem with a religious body prescribing certain behaviours, but what GC seems to be arguing is that he then holds a trump card which should morally prevent the country from awarding rights to others.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Issues in Sexuality is just one of the poisoned chalices with which Carey lumbered the Church of England. The CofE has been been a little bogged down with another of his legacy issues in women priests / bishops and the phrasing in that legislation for the last few years, but the problems with church finances also started under his watch.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Basically bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.
Nope. Try again.

All I am seeing here is people saying, "Carey is a bigot because I say he is," and answer criticism of their view with "bigotry is bigotry is bigotry."

We need a better definition of bigotry than this.
No. I wasn't trying to define bigotry. What I was saying is that whatever the definition it should be applied equally. What you and Carey seem to be argiung is that whatever the definition of bigotry it should have a christianity-shaped hole in it.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

We need a better definition of bigotry than this.
Oh, if only we had, say, a web of information, and it was world-wide... and there was some way to search, or as the kids these days say, "Google"... Then we could, perhaps, type "define bigotry" into the Google and get an answer...

big·ot·ry/ˈbigətrē/
Noun:
Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

And because I know someone's going to kick up a fuss,

tol·er·ance/ˈtälərəns/
Noun: The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with: "religious tolerance"
Before I get myself deeper in it, let me point out that I have already have posted that I disagree with Carey on the issue of same sex marriages, and by extention Issues in Sexuality.

Leaving aside that the above definition defines Bigotry in terms of Bigoted <oh dear>.

Carey's opinions are based on something objective, Issues In Sexuality. (Something which was not imposed by a corner of the Church, as the long ranger supposes, but by a consortium of Bishops from all corners of Church.)

Some posters on this thread are criticising Carey from a subjective viewpoint (Me too, but I'm not calling him a bigot). What I am asking for is an objective place to base the objection on.

We have one in Godwin's law. What Carey said about those who disagreed with him was a bigoted statement under the definition above, (good reply Horeman Bree [Smile] )

It is when this is extended to saying that Carey is a bigot because his views on sexuality are objectively in line with those in the document Issues In Sexuality by those whose view is subjective. The problem I have is that these people seem to me to be closer to 'intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself' than Lord Carey.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yep.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Carey's opinions are based on something objective, Issues In Sexuality. (Something which was not imposed by a corner of the Church, as the long ranger supposes, but by a consortium of Bishops from all corners of Church.)

[SNIP]

It is when this is extended to saying that Carey is a bigot because his views on sexuality are objectively in line with those in the document Issues In Sexuality by those whose view is subjective. The problem I have is that these people seem to me to be closer to 'intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself' than Lord Carey.
How are you using the word objective here with reference to Issues in Sexuality, in that you say it is objective but those who disagree with it are being subjective?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
I don't think the issue is really whether Lord Carey actually is an according-to-Hoyle bigot. It depends how you define bigotry. It depends whether objective actions or subjective motivations are more important in making the assessment.

The issue is whether, given that he is actively campaigning against the right of a group of people to get married, it is reasonable for him to complain about being called a bigot as an offense comparable to Nazi persecutions.

It clearly isn't. Whatever his reasons, he is picking this fight. He's choosing to go on record as hostile to gay people who wish to marry. He is actively trying to frustrate the personal aspirations of people who have never done him any harm. Maybe he thinks he's justified in that, but given that the man was an Archbishop, he really ought to have the political acumen to foresee that the people down whose backs he is attempting to piss are likely to say rude things about him, and that is a natural and entirely understandable response to his behaviour, not some appalling injustice.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

It is when this is extended to saying that Carey is a bigot because his views on sexuality are objectively in line with those in the document Issues In Sexuality by those whose view is subjective. The problem I have is that these people seem to me to be closer to 'intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself' than Lord Carey.
No, attempting to impose your view on others is not objective. You are entitled to argue your own church stands up to a document it endorsed, you're not entitled to say that this means that nobody else should have the right to a secular wedding.

How is that not bigoted? It is intolerance to another group because you don't like them. Which is no different materially for saying that Jews should not be allowed to get married because they're not Christians.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Well, I suppose it's no more 'bigoted' than saying that conservative Christians aren't allowed to state their beliefs without having opprobrium heaped upon them. 'Bigoted' is a far-overused word and, when you thus overuse something in this way, it devalues its meaning much as overprinting a currency devalues it.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Well, I suppose it's no more 'bigoted' than saying that conservative Christians aren't allowed to state their beliefs without having opprobrium heaped upon them.
That's not bigotted - it's nonsensical.

No one has the right to state their beliefs with a guarantee that they will attract no opprobrium. Anyone in the UK, conservative or liberal, Christian or non-Christian, gay or straight, has the right to say what he likes about my marriage, and I have the right to think him a cock for saying it. If a conservative Christian wants the right to open his gob without the risk of being thought a cock, he wants something which no other human being in the world possesses, and no human authority has the power to grant.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
In that case, conservative Christians have the right to call their opponents bigotted too. That kind of name-calling doesn't really advance either side's argument.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
In that case, conservative Christians have the right to call their opponents bigotted too. That kind of name-calling doesn't really advance either side's argument.
No. That kind of fatuous argument doesn't advance the discussion. Calling someone a bigot without saying how and why is just mudslinging. Compare and constrast the following statements:

John Smith is a Nazi because he wants to deny my freedom of speech by calling me a bigot.

John Smith is a Nazi because he reads a passage from Mein Kampf at bedtime, listens to Prussian Blue, is an active member of Stormfront, celebrates Hitler's birthday, and wears an SS uniform on a regular basis.

Which of them should be laughed at? And which of them has a damn good point?

For bonus marks, which did -Carey do earlier this week? And which is orfeo doing when he uses the term bigot to refer to -Carey?
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Lord Carey's posted what appears to be a transcript of his speech to the Conservative Party Fringe on the subject of same-sex marriage, but it contains no mention of Jews or Nazis.

Whatever the truth of the matter, it's clear that he strongly objects to being called a bigot just because he happens to act like one.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Sorry, don't buy that analogy: it is bigotted to be intolerant of the views of others.

[reply to Justinian]

[ 12. October 2012, 12:05: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry, don't buy that analogy: it is bigotted to be intolerant of the views of others.
So are you a racist bigot, or are you bigoted against racists?

Maybe you think you can find some sort of "third way" out of this, but I'm struggling to see it.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry, don't buy that analogy: it is bigotted to be intolerant of the views of others.

[reply to Justinian]
Well, no not really. I'd say bigotism specifically refers to people who believe that their own special beliefs trump the rights of others. Because that is to imply a special revelation for your beliefs which means you can in essence control the lives of your opponents.

So if Carey is saying (and I believe he is) that gay marriage should not be allowed by the state because that would conflict and degrade his own - and by extension his churches (apparently) - right to marry, then he is a bigot. Because if that argument won the day, it would be preventing another group from accessing general civil rights simply on the basis of arguing the rightness of his beliefs.

If, on the other hand, he is just arguing that gay marriage is wrong and that whatever the state decides, the church of which he is a part should have no part of it, then I don't think that is bigoted.

On the other hand, if his opponents are arguing that the Anglican church should be forced to conduct civil gay marriages, then very possibly they are being bigoted, because they are (or might well be) forcing general civil beliefs onto a religious body.

If they're just saying that no, an Anglican cleric does not have the casting vote as to whether a civil gay marriage law should be on the statute book, that is not bigoted. And if they are calling Carey a bigot, that is not necessarily evidence that they are themselves bigoted.

I'm sure there are gay marriage bigots, but as I said earlier, I doubt many people would want to force a religious body to conduct a gay marriage, because that would plainly be uncomfortable for everyone.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry, don't buy that analogy: it is bigotted to be intolerant of the views of others.

[reply to Justinian]
So the only way not to be a bigot in Matt Black land is to be so open minded your brains fall out of your ears and to never . That's a position I suppose - I don't find it very useful. But it is a position.

There are two different sides to this.

One side wants to talk and for everyone to be able to talk equally. And if one side gets to say things are wrong then so does the other.

The other side wants to actively deny people rights. The right to get married under any circumstances at all. The right to hold the religious ceremonies you wish to when they conflict with the viewpoints of the people on that side.

There is clear water between the intended behaviours of the groups. Can you see that? And how would you describe the difference?
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

I'm sure there are gay marriage bigots, but as I said earlier, I doubt many people would want to force a religious body to conduct a gay marriage, because that would plainly be uncomfortable for everyone.
Some people within the religious body probably want the religious body to change its policies (and in groups like the Quakers, Unitarians, etc that has already changed and they are just waiting upon the civil law to catch up). I suspect part of what has Carey and others worried is that they know the Anglican church has those in favor of religious marriages including marriages between people of the same sex and fear hat allowing civil marriage would arm those in favor (and they are correct). BTW can a mixed sex couple, one partner of which was previously a different sex, get married in an Anglican church and what does Carey think of that?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
In that case, conservative Christians have the right to call their opponents bigotted too.
Well if they want to appear even more hysterical and stupid than Lord Carey is already making them look, then yes, I suppose that they do.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry, don't buy that analogy: it is bigotted to be intolerant of the views of others.

[reply to Justinian]
One side wants to talk and for everyone to be able to talk equally. And if one side gets to say things are wrong then so does the other.

The other side wants to actively deny people rights. The right to get married under any circumstances at all. The right to hold the religious ceremonies you wish to when they conflict with the viewpoints of the people on that side.

There is clear water between the intended behaviours of the groups. Can you see that? And how would you describe the difference?
I kind of see what you and the Long Ranger are saying but there is also the point that intolerance is intolerance, whichever 'side' is doing it. I also want to pick up on the piece I've italicised in your quote - change the last words to "whose religious ceremonies these are."
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I kind of see what you and the Long Ranger are saying but there is also the point that intolerance is intolerance, whichever 'side' is doing it.
Are you suggesting we should be tolerant of intolerance?
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry, don't buy that analogy: it is bigotted to be intolerant of the views of others.

[reply to Justinian]
One side wants to talk and for everyone to be able to talk equally. And if one side gets to say things are wrong then so does the other.

The other side wants to actively deny people rights. The right to get married under any circumstances at all. The right to hold the religious ceremonies you wish to when they conflict with the viewpoints of the people on that side.

There is clear water between the intended behaviours of the groups. Can you see that? And how would you describe the difference?
I kind of see what you and the Long Ranger are saying but there is also the point that intolerance is intolerance, whichever 'side' is doing it. I also want to pick up on the piece I've italicised in your quote - change the last words to "whose religious ceremonies these are."
"The people whose religious ceremonise these are"?

Congratulations, Matt Black. You've actually shocked me.

You've claimed ownership for yourself and for -Carey of all Quaker and Unitarian marriage services.

On what basis do you claim that right?

Because no one is going to force -Carey to officiate any marriage service he doesn't want to any more than anyone can force a Roman Catholic priest to marry a couple of divorcees.

This is in part about giving control of the religuious ceremonies to the people whose ceremonies they are rather than banning them from holding services that are licit in their churches.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That kind of name-calling doesn't really advance either side's argument.
Actually, I want to argue with that. Because I think that contempt, ridicule and indignation do have a role to play.

The anti-gay marriage side have no good arguments. At all. Not a single fucking one. There is no better case to be made in a liberal democracy against equal rights for gays than there is against equal rights for women, or equal rights for blacks, or equal rights for left-handers, or any one else. And really, that's all that anyone needs to know about the merits.

But people are still homophobic, racist, sexist, classist, sectarian, and whatever. They don't hold those positions because they've been argued into them, or because they have good rational reasons. They hold them because either they are basically nasty people, or because they have picked up on unreasoning prejudices. There are limits to what reason can do in countering those prejudices.

And therefore there is a strong case for making things like homophobia taboo, unacceptable, and shameful, just as in many (not all) circles outright racism is shameful. Scorn and contempt are appropriate responses to shameful attitudes. It is right to despise racism. It is right to make people ashamed of looking like sexists. It is right to use rude words when talking about homophobia.

It's time we stopped treating with polite disagreement actual attmepts to deny people legal equality. Attempting to deny people equality is not a polite thing to do. It's shitty. People who do it are shits. If enough of us say that, maybe we can shame some of them into not being shits.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I haven't mentioned Quakers or Unitarians.

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I kind of see what you and the Long Ranger are saying but there is also the point that intolerance is intolerance, whichever 'side' is doing it.
Are you suggesting we should be tolerant of intolerance?
Depends on the situation doesn't it? Should we be tolerant of intolerance of cruelty to animals, for example? (Please note, I am NOT equating gay marriage to cruelty to animals, just throwing it out as an example where I think everyone here can agree that we should be intolerant.)

[cp with Eliab - you do realise you're playing straight into Carey's hands with an argument like that, don't you? He's already advancing down the road of 'help help I'm being oppressed!' and you're going to help him say 'see? What did I tell you!']

[ 12. October 2012, 13:41: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Carey's opinions are based on something objective, Issues In Sexuality. (Something which was not imposed by a corner of the Church, as the long ranger supposes, but by a consortium of Bishops from all corners of Church.)
This interesting. I've never heard the "I can't be a bigot because my views are endorsed by some kind of official body" distinction before. Let's try it out on a couple of other examples. It'll be fun!

quote:
I can't be a bigot because my views are based on something objective, the Jim Crow laws of Mississippi, something not imposed on the state but enacted by legislators from all over the state.
quote:
I can't be a racist because my views are based on something objective, the Apartheid policies of the South African government, something not imposed on the nation but enacted by (white-only) legislators from all over South Africa.
quote:
I can't be an anti-Semite because my views are based on something objective, the clear statements of our Führer, who says . . .
. . . well, you get the idea. I figured I'd bring the last one back around to the OP.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"The people whose religious ceremonise these are"?

Congratulations, Matt Black. You've actually shocked me.

You've claimed ownership for yourself and for -Carey of all Quaker and Unitarian marriage services.

On what basis do you claim that right?

Because no one is going to force -Carey to officiate any marriage service he doesn't want to any more than anyone can force a Roman Catholic priest to marry a couple of divorcees.

This is in part about giving control of the religuious ceremonies to the people whose ceremonies they are rather than banning them from holding services that are licit in their churches.
MB's argument pretty much boils down to "your rejection of my right to control you is the real bigotry here".
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Er...no. You've completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say: intolerance of someone's religious belief is a problem. It's not the 'real' problem or even the 'main' problem, but neither should it be swept under the carpet and ignored.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[cp with Eliab - you do realise you're playing straight into Carey's hands with an argument like that, don't you? He's already advancing down the road of 'help help I'm being oppressed!' and you're going to help him say 'see? What did I tell you!']
If I thought that a former fucking Archbishop of Canterbury could be shamed into repentance by being called a shit on the internet by an anonymous lay reader, it would make me happy beyond words.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
I think what's actually going on is being missed.

Almost nobody uses the word 'bigot' when something is widely accepted. So if you opined back in the days when the Westminster Confession was widely taken seriously that 'the Pope was antichrist' nobody would call you a bigot except maybe a few 'papists' and they didn't matter. You were expressing a highly respectable theological point of view - so respectable it was part of the bed rock of the established church in these parts. Bigotry? Good grief no! Sadly, you would explain along the lines of - 'Of course I don't hate Papists, I'm not intolerant, some of my best friends are Catholics, they're nice people, it's just a fact that they have a bad religion and this is sound doctrine supported by the Bible'

If you tried that now, it would be quite unexceptional for people to call you a bigot or your view bigoted. 'Bigot' is shorthand for supporting an argument which has been lost so completely in the public mind that nobody really bothers to argue about it anymore - it's accepted as something wrong and prejudiced which was once, perhaps, generally thought to be correct but which is not given the time of day anymore. If you start going on about the Pope being anti-christ, miscegenation being wrong, the Irish being filthy, people will quite happily tell you you're a bigot - ie. they don't take your argument seriously anymore as anything more than prejudice. We've been there, done that, back in the day bought the T-shirt - my word it's an ugly old fashioned thing only fit for the bin...


The fuss about the word 'bigot' now is Carey and co cottoning on to how far they have lost the argument in public perception - that it's no longer a serious question for most people in the UK ( US mileage may vary). They've made their minds up - anti gay arguments belong in the category of 'not even worth discussing whether they're prejudiced or not' which 'bigot' represents. It's not really about how a belief is held or expressed, so much as about the perception that people are flogging dislikable arguments after their popular sell-by date.

Of course Lord Carey objects to the term - he'd like to be taken seriously. Orange Lodge types object to it too when their favourite anti-catholic arguments get the same short shrift. Once you start arguing that you're being called a 'bigot' and it's not fair, the game really is up and you're admitting it.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...no. You've completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say: intolerance of someone's religious belief is a problem. It's not the 'real' problem or even the 'main' problem, but neither should it be swept under the carpet and ignored.
But no one here is being intolerant of Lord Carey's religious beliefs. Or anyone's. Christianity is not under threat. No one is arguing that Christian marriages should be invalid.

Although, maybe that's not strictly true - some people are arguing that Christian groups who want to celebrate as a valid marriage the union of a same sex couple should not be permitted to do so. But apart from those shits, no one else wants to limit religious freedom.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Interestingly enough, the Church of England's view on Human Sexuality refers not to the 1991 report but to the 2003 debate, to the marriage, family and sexuality issues and to the Lesbian and Gay Christians debate in 2007.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I haven't mentioned Quakers or Unitarians.
No you haven't. But you want to control them all the same.

The pro-Gay Marriage people want it to be legal for gay people to get married. This doesn't mean that any specific church needs to marry them any more than the Roman Catholic Church needs to marry divorcees.

The anti-Gay Marriage people want it to be illegal for gay people to get married. This means that churches who believe they should be able to marry gay people (like the Quakers and Unitarians) can't.

If you are actually in favour of religious freedom and the people who own the marriage services saying what happens at them you will let the Quakers and Unitarians marry people. Where you are you are trying to control their religious ceremonies - and for you to try to accuse others of this is nothing more than projection.

quote:
[cp with Eliab - you do realise you're playing straight into Carey's hands with an argument like that, don't you? He's already advancing down the road of 'help help I'm being oppressed!' and you're going to help him say 'see? What did I tell you!']
Carey doesn't have an argument. He is saying "People should be nice to me so I'm going to call them Nazis."
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...no. You've completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say: intolerance of someone's religious belief is a problem.
No, I'm disagreeing with your casual conflation of "disagreement" with "intolerance".
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Matt Black:
quote:
I also want to pick up on the piece I've italicised in your quote - change the last words to "whose religious ceremonies these are."
Are you suggesting that all Anglicans are opposed to same-sex marriage? Because I am an Anglican, and I support it. Or are you suggesting that only people like Lord Carey have ownership of religious ceremonies?

And also, what Louise said.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...no. You've completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say: intolerance of someone's religious belief is a problem. It's not the 'real' problem or even the 'main' problem, but neither should it be swept under the carpet and ignored.
If you believe that is a problem then stop doing it. Stop arguing to keep services the Quakers and Unitarians think they have the right to perform as illegal. That is far more intolerant than anything -Carey or you can accuse the other side of.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Carey's opinions are based on something objective, Issues In Sexuality. (Something which was not imposed by a corner of the Church, as the long ranger supposes, but by a consortium of Bishops from all corners of Church.)
The reverse is true. 'Issues' was a contribution to a debate in synod. It was never voted upon.

Cary took it upon himself, every time a new bishop was appointed, to tell said bishop to implement it as policy.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Maybe because "Issues in Sexuality" is an effectively bigoted document?
Indeed - and more so, the study guide to it has a raving bigot, Robert Gagnon and it also misquotes 'liberal' scholars to appear as if they had said conservative things. Totally dishonest.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
As is often the case on the Ship, I have been given some food for thought which I will have to put in my pipe and smoke for a wee while...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Meanwhile, this thread has said a lot about 'Issues in Human Sexuality' but Carey was called a bigot, not because of his adherence to that document but, because of his suggesting proponents of gay marriage were like Nazis.

If Carey isn't a bigot, he certainly is an idiot.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is often the case on the Ship, I have been given some food for thought which I will have to put in my pipe and smoke for a wee while...
I can't ask for more than that [Smile]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Coming back a bit late to the party to direct attention to Fred Clark's article entitled You can’t deny people their rights and be nice about it

A bit on the long side, but a good read. It also explains, tangentially, why so many of us have problems with the attitude of certain evangelicals, as discussed on a Purg thread just now.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Coming back a bit late to the party to direct attention to Fred Clark's article entitled You can’t deny people their rights and be nice about it
Thanks!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry, don't buy that analogy: it is bigotted to be intolerant of the views of others.

[reply to Justinian]
Nope.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Sorry, Croesus. I knew I'd seen that post somewhere other than at Fred's. Reading too many things, I guess.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
So we can't all agree on whether Carey's remarks were bigoted. Can we all agree that they were stupid?

(Please note - I am not calling Carey himself either a bigot or stupid. I'm trying to keep the focus on his remarks.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
From the article -

quote:
Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely.
[Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

What an excellent article! It puts into words brilliantly how difficult it is to argue with some people. I'll be quoting this next time I confront this attitude, which is so prevalent in the Church.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
[ETA: Response to Robert Armin]

I think that depends on what he said. It seems from various sources that he drew a comparison between calling people bigots and Nazism, but his own site's transcript contains no mention of either Nazis or Jews. If he did draw such a comparison, it was crass at the very least, and could be described as stupid in the narrow sense of being careless, insensitive and asking for trouble, but on the available information, it's a bit of a leap to conclude more than that.

My greatest objection, one which stands even by his own account, is that he's treating "bigot" as a boo-word which is unhelpful and even unacceptable. It's not - it's a description which may or may not be accurate. A more sensible approach would be to consider what it is about the C4M campaign that makes people say such a thing, and whether it might even be accurate.

[ 13. October 2012, 12:21: Message edited by: The Great Gumby ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Carey's opinions are based on something objective, Issues In Sexuality. (Something which was not imposed by a corner of the Church, as the long ranger supposes, but by a consortium of Bishops from all corners of Church.)
The reverse is true. 'Issues' was a contribution to a debate in synod. It was never voted upon.

Cary took it upon himself, every time a new bishop was appointed, to tell said bishop to implement it as policy.
But it wasn't his document, comissioned under Runcie. Neither does that eplain why the House of Bishops has had it linked on the front of its website through Williams' reign.

The bishops seem to like it.

Which is unfortunate, because although it contains a lot which is good, it is a deeply flawed article. Take this, Paragraph 5.2: (my bold)

quote:

The first is that homophile orientation and its expression in sexual activity do not constitute a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the created order as the heterosexual. The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, make it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.
"The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience," Really?

Tradition does, yes. Many, but not all interpretations of scripture also lead to this conclusion too, so it is pushing it a bit to include Scripture. But reasoned reflection??
Does sociological evidence lead to this conclusion? Even as it was understood in 1991? No. This is just plain wrong.

[ 14. October 2012, 17:09: Message edited by: balaam ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
"The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience," Really?

Tradition does, yes. Many, but not all interpretations of scripture also lead to this conclusion too, so it is pushing it a bit to include Scripture. But reasoned reflection??
Does sociological evidence lead to this conclusion? Even as it was understood in 1991? No. This is just plain wrong.
Indeed. Whose experience did they listen to?

The URC produced a report about the same time which started with the 'testimonies' of several lesbian and gay people (bis and trans weren't linked in at that time). Some living celibate lives, some partnered, some married to people of the opposite sex.

That set the tone for a discussion of scripture.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
Posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
My greatest objection, one which stands even by his own account, is that he's treating "bigot" as a boo-word which is unhelpful and even unacceptable. It's not - it's a description which may or may not be accurate.
But, judging by Louise's comment, actually it is a "boo-word"?
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
My greatest objection, one which stands even by his own account, is that he's treating "bigot" as a boo-word which is unhelpful and even unacceptable. It's not - it's a description which may or may not be accurate.
But, judging by Louise's comment, actually it is a "boo-word"?
I'm not sure about that. Louise will undoubtedly have her own view, but I think what we're saying is fairly similar, or at least not contradictory. The word is a description. People use it because they believe it to be accurate, and there's a dictionary definition of what that word means. It's an indication that Carey's losing the argument, but that doesn't mean it's an insult with no content. On the contrary, he's losing the argument because more and more people see his position for what it is.

When he objects to people throwing around the word "bigot", Carey's addressing the symptom, but not the cause. The word isn't used simply to annoy him - it's used because people believe it to be accurate, despite (or possibly because of) all his special pleading. The fact that so many people think this way is a huge problem for him, but the answer is to consider why his views are seen this way, not to complain about the use of a particular word. Treating this linguistic symptom won't cure the disease of being regarded as intolerant, judgemental and (yes) bigoted.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From the article -

quote:
Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely.
[Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

What an excellent article! It puts into words brilliantly how difficult it is to argue with some people. I'll be quoting this next time I confront this attitude, which is so prevalent in the Church.
The most charitable construction I can come up with is this: if, as a conservative Chistian, you consider same-sex sexual relationships to be a sin and that - by extension - same-sex marriage is endorsing and encouraging that sin, it follows that by opposing this, you are being 'nice' in that you are denying people the opportunity for further sin. In that sense - and this is a poor analogy - you are seeking to protect people from their own folly in much the same way as motoring laws deny drivers and passengers the right to not wear a seatbelt.

However, this is (a) a very-stretched argument and (b) in any event is not one I have ever heard a conservative Christian actually advance as even a reason to oppose SSM. But that's the only possible construction I can come up with to put a 'nice' spin on denying other people rights in this context - and it's about as weak as a cup of tea that has had a fleeting glimpse of a tea bag from over a mile away...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
For Lord Carey to equate principled opposition to his views as placing him in the same category as a jew under nazism is simply vile.

Is he a bigot? Well...

Someone much wiser than me said a long time ago that an acid test on whether or not something was acceptable was to substitute the word "black" for "woman" in relation to restrictions on women.

In this case, try substituting the word "black" for "gay" in Lord Carey's pronouncements and see how they read...

The bigger question is just who thought that this man was ever fit to have the care of souls in a parish, never mind be head of the Anglican communion. There is a lesson to be learned from Lord Carey for the Crown Appointments Committee as they ponder on a successor to Rowan...
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The bigger question is just who thought that this man was ever fit to have the care of souls in a parish, never mind be head of the Anglican communion. There is a lesson to be learned from Lord Carey for the Crown Appointments Committee as they ponder on a successor to Rowan...
He was a good parish priest. He was also successful as a theological college lecturer.

As a bishop... Who can tell, he was only a couple of years in the job when he was appointed archbishop.

As archbishop he brought in the ordination of women. Also under him it became OK th ordain gay clergy (if they were celibate - which is better than not at all). A step in the right direction, if only a small one.

Things move slowly in the Anglican Church, which can be frustrating. In accepting civil partnerships the CofE has moved another step on the road to accepting homoseual relationships.

The acceptance of Homosexual marriages and Homosexuals in a relationship into clergy are steps not yet taken. It may need more than one step to get there.

I do not believe emotive language such as labelling someone 'bigot' or saying things like, "Who thought that this man was ever fit to have the care of souls in a parish," are helpful.

Better to celebrate each step for what it is, movement in the right direction, even if that movement is slow. Then we can start working towards the next step.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Better to celebrate each step for what it is, movement in the right direction, even if that movement is slow. Then we can start working towards the next step.
That's one way to look at it. Another is to observe that for someone "who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom" "[t]his 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never'."
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
He was also successful as a theological college lecturer.

As a bishop... Who can tell, he was only a couple of years in the job when he was appointed archbishop.
Do you know anyone from his period at Trinity or at Bath & Wells?

They may well have a different evaluation.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

Things move slowly in the Anglican Church, which can be frustrating. In accepting civil partnerships the CofE has moved another step on the road to accepting homoseual relationships.

The acceptance of Homosexual marriages and Homosexuals in a relationship into clergy are steps not yet taken. It may need more than one step to get there.

I do not believe emotive language such as labelling someone 'bigot' or saying things like, "Who thought that this man was ever fit to have the care of souls in a parish," are helpful.

Better to celebrate each step for what it is, movement in the right direction, even if that movement is slow. Then we can start working towards the next step.
The trouble is that generally, these guys aren't so much stepping in the right direction as being dragged, kicking and screaming, by the sheer force of opposing opinion. If that forcefulness wasn't there I very much doubt that they would move at all. They may be accepting civil partnerships now but only because it's a done deal and they know it's not going away. It's not as though they embraced civil partnerships from the beginning. In fact I for one would have a lot more respect for them if they weren't now saying "don't call us bigots! We accept civil partnerships completely, but not marriage!" when I know damn well that these exact same people have campaigned against civil partnerships and every other piece of LGBT legislation. If it were really, truly about the "tradition of marriage" and not homophobia, you wouldn't see that pattern.

[ 15. October 2012, 16:26: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
He was also successful as a theological college lecturer.

As a bishop... Who can tell, he was only a couple of years in the job when he was appointed archbishop.
Do you know anyone from his period at Trinity or at Bath & Wells?

They may well have a different evaluation.
I was in his parish when I was a student at Durham. I have nothing but good memories of him in our church.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
The Peter Principle in action, perhaps?
FWIW (not much, I suspect), not highly thought of in the Bishoprics Dept of the Church Commissioners when he was at Bath & Wells. I remember some ludicrous wrangle over his trying to get the Commissioners to pay for a summer-house which he had IIRC ordered without asking whether it would be paid for, and him getting very whingeily shirty when he was told this didn't fall within the kinds of expenses he could claim. In the end I believe he did get his money but only because his whingeing was becoming insufferable.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Albertus - another example of 'mere vulgar abuse' which you admit to on another thread. Your comments are untrue. I suspect also you have breached the confidence of colleagues to recycle gossip and slander.

The serious point is that this debate does arouse malice and hatred - on both sides. In an unscripted reply to a question seeking to co-opt him into name-calling my father, aka. Lord Carey, chose a very unfortunate way to make a very good point about the sort of dehumanising and abusive effect our choice of language can have.

I'll try, for obvious reasons, to resist making any further comment on this thread. You're all entitled to your opinions but not to making stuff up.

[ 16. October 2012, 11:35: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
'Bigot' certainly seems to be becoming shorthand for 'people with whose opinions I (heartily) disagree but I can't really be bothered to have a dialogue with them so will resort to flinging insults around'. Not that I'm accusing anyone here of doing that of course ( [Biased] ) but it is becoming over-used to the point of beginning to lose its meaning; if you over-print a currency, you devalue it...
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
It was also over-used in South Africa at one time too. Didn't make the fact of it stink any less then either.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Albertus - another example of 'mere vulgar abuse' which you admit to on another thread. Your comments are untrue. I suspect also you have breached the confidence of colleagues to recycle gossip and slander.

The serious point is that this debate does arouse malice and hatred - on both sides. In an unscripted reply to a question seeking to co-opt him into name-calling my father, aka. Lord Carey, chose a very unfortunate way to make a very good point about the sort of dehumanising and abusive effect our choice of language can have.

I'll try, for obvious reasons, to resist making any further comment on this thread. You're all entitled to your opinions but not to making stuff up.
Spawn.

With all due respect, how the hell would you have an accurate impression of your father's ministry. You are too close to him.

And -Carey does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to dehumanising others. Your father expressly refused to sign the Cambridge Accord that did nothing more than affirm that homosexual people had human rights, shouldn't be beaten up, and should be treated with dignity and respect. (Full text below).

quote:
The text of the Cambridge Accord
In the name of God, we, the bishops of the Anglican Communion who have affixed our names to this Accord, publish it as a statement of our shared opinion in regard to all persons who are homosexual. We affirm that while we may have contrasting views on the Biblical, theological, and moral issues surrounding homosexuality, on these three points we are in one Accord:
We appeal to people of good conscience from every nation and religious creed to join us in embracing this simple Accord as our global claim to human rights not only for homosexual men and women, but for all God's people.
Given his express refusal to sign up to the idea that gay people have human rights, (or was he standing for the idea they should be beaten up? Or was he standing against treating them with dignity and respect?) on what basis does he have a leg to stand on when complaining about dehumanising people?

Your father expressly stood against the simple affirmation others he disagreed with have human rights. And now he is whinging about being called names and in doing so he's calling others Nazis. If indeed he was making a point about the mote of dehumanisation in others eyes by calling them bigots, then the way he chose to do it by violating Godwin's Law was a beam - and his express refusal to sign up to the idea of civil rights for all people is an entire lumber yard.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I do not believe emotive language such as labelling someone 'bigot' or saying things like, "Who thought that this man was ever fit to have the care of souls in a parish," are helpful.
How about the words used by -Carey? Are they helpful?

quote:
Better to celebrate each step for what it is, movement in the right direction, even if that movement is slow. Then we can start working towards the next step.
You mean that each step is the kicking and screaming of a church that is slowly, inch by inch, being dragged into compliance with secular morality rather than being bigotted, reactionary, and the last acceptable bastion of homophobia? I'm sorry, but the Church I grew up being taught about was better than that. It was not the institution where the moral sludge of the society resided. And that turning the Church into a civilised insitution is slow merely underlines the pointlessness of the Church.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Present topic aside, I'm concerned about the assertion that the church should conform to secular morality. Since when?! Surely the church is to the a prophetic voice to the world, not ape its values? "Do not be conformed to the pattern of the world..." and all that.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

With all due respect, how the hell would you have an accurate impression of your father's ministry. You are too close to him.
I think I've got an accurate memory of his ministry. (Though not a recent one) And I know other poeopel who do as well. And the over-the-top demonisation posted here just makes me doubt the motives or understanding of the people who are doing it.

The same goes for the absurd things some people say about Rowan Williams, also including some frequent posters here. Maybe its just a risk of being an Archbishop. Maybe its a good reason not to be an Archbishop. Maybe its a good reason not to have Archbishops at all. (Does the Church need them? What are they actually for?)

But whatever the reason for it, most of it is nonsesense.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
As archbishop he brought in the ordination of women. Also under him it became OK th ordain gay clergy (if they were celibate - which is better than not at all). A step in the right direction, if only a small one. Things move slowly in the Anglican Church, which can be frustrating. In accepting civil partnerships the CofE has moved another step on the road to accepting homoseual relationships.
Balaam: 1. The issue of ordination of women had been simmering for years and to credit GC with introducing it won't wash: he just happened to be ABofC when it was (finally) brought in.

2. Ordination of gay clergy: there have been gay clergy for ever: what GC did was to start prurient questioning of anyone foolish enough to admit to being gay about their sex life. Has anyone ever questioned heterosexual ordinands about their sex life? I think not.

3. The Anglican church doesn't "accept" civil partnerships, it simply accepts (grudgingly) that it can't do anything about them.

With the issue of marriage for gays the CofE could be giving a lead by acknowledging that society has moved on from the rules of nomadic tribes and that the church has the courage and confidence to move with the rest of society.

Put it another way: how about the church stops wringing its hands about sex and concentrates instead on relationships that are full of love?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Thought for the day...

If anyone else struck by the similarities between Lord Carey and a former leader of the conservative party and PM:

IS Lord Carey the Church of England's Edward Heath??? [Devil]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[ The issue of ordination of women had been simmering for years and to credit GC with introducing it won't wash: he just happened to be ABofC when it was (finally) brought in.
That's simply untrue. He'd been actively campaigning for it for years. My first reaction on hearing that he was to be the next ABC was to thank God because I was at that moment convinced we were finally about to ordain women. It was one of the things I most associated with him.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Present topic aside, I'm concerned about the assertion that the church should conform to secular morality. Since when?! Surely the church is to the a prophetic voice to the world, not ape its values? "Do not be conformed to the pattern of the world..." and all that.
Of course. The Church is called to be counter-cultural. But not indiscriminately so. Sometimes the 'children of this world' are closer to gospel truth than the religious, as Jesus himself knew. If secular morality is self-evidently more in accordance with gospel values then the Church should get on board. Theology which treats some of God's children as inferior beings deserves contempt, and damages the witness of the Church when it rightly speaks out against the tide.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Present topic aside, I'm concerned about the assertion that the church should conform to secular morality. Since when?! Surely the church is to the a prophetic voice to the world, not ape its values? "Do not be conformed to the pattern of the world..." and all that.
And that's the point. If the Church actually has a purpose then it should be the one leading secular morality. It should be in advance of such morality. The Church should be the one telling secular society "You should be decent to all people", not the other way round.

So the answer to "since when"? Since the Church abdicated its job. I think in Britain the answer is "Since the Welfare State and the NHS between them showed that caring for the sick and feeding the hungry is something we can actually do for almost all of the country at once." And the Church never stretched the goals. We can realistically ask why 'the poor shall always be with us'. While the Church goes on preaching from the same old hymn sheet.

If Jesus of Nazareth preached a society as egalitarian and benevolent as 21st Century Britain, he'd have been laughed at. He had to preach to people who stoned adulterers. Who were used to mass crucifixions. Things we'd consider utterly barbarous. I'm not saying there isn't plenty to still be done (as someone who turned up for a few days of Occupy and who donates to causes including Amnesty). I'm saying that the Church is still preaching from a hymn sheet that was written 2000 years ago.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think I've got an accurate memory of his ministry. (Though not a recent one) And I know other poeopel who do as well. And the over-the-top demonisation posted here just makes me doubt the motives or understanding of the people who are doing it.
[Citation Needed]

What 'understanding' would you like projected on someone appealing for politeness while making hyperbolic comparisons with concentration camp victims? What 'understanding' would you like projected onto someone who expressly refuses to sign on to the idea that gay people have human rights?

Do I need to bring Fred Clark's article out for a third time this thread?

quote:
But whatever the reason for it, most of it is nonsesense.
[Citation needed]

If you think it's nonsense, the answer to bad information is better information. Not mudslinging and making slurs on peoples' motives.

Edit: And yes. I believe he was in favour of women priests.

[ 16. October 2012, 14:17: Message edited by: Justinian ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Ken, actively campaigning is well and good but so were thousands of others.

As for your reaction when GC's name was announced: bully for you. Whether or not the decision to ordain women was a good one is generally taken to be a given: what is never addressed is that there was then such an unseemly rush that some candidates were ordained who, had they been male, would never had made it through.

On the original thread about GC being bigoted: I've taken the time to read his pronouncements about gays, abortion, etc, and the only conclusion to be reached is that he is a man with a closed mind: moreover, a man of closed mind who seems unwilling and unable to accept that those who hold a different view to his own may be seen as having as much validity for their opinion as he does. That, to my mind, is a bigot.

His use of the term "Nazi" is offensive and seeking to portray himself and his fellow homophobes as akin to suffering jews in grotesque. His failure to apologise for using this imagery makes it worse.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Present topic aside, I'm concerned about the assertion that the church should conform to secular morality. Since when?! Surely the church is to the a prophetic voice to the world, not ape its values? "Do not be conformed to the pattern of the world..." and all that.
The church shouldn't conform to secular morality: it should be BETTER than secular morality.

But that means that when decent, moral non-Christians say "hang on a minute - this position that you're holding is immoral", we should take careful note. Whether it be attitudes to women, accommodation of paedophiles or attitudes towards gays, the Church has repeatedly found itself in a position where decent thinking people have come to the conclusion that it is morally bankrupt. That cannot be right. Perhaps we need to have the humility to listen to other moral thinking, rather than presuming that we have all the answers.

Instead of coming out with meaningless waffle about being a "prophetic voice", we would do well to consider why it is that we are not seen as moral leaders for our society. And we should be (IMNSHO).
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Many conservative Christians would say that by 'speaking out' (as they would see it) against sexual relationships outsie (traditional) marriage they are being better than secular society. Your definition of 'better' is obviously different from theirs, but they would say that you are conforming to 'worldly' standards of morality.

Given these stances, I don't think the two sides are ever going to approach convergence.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many conservative Christians would say that by 'speaking out' (as they would see it) against sexual relationships outsie (traditional) marriage they are being better than secular society. Your definition of 'better' is obviously different from theirs, but they would say that you are conforming to 'worldly' standards of morality.

Given these stances, I don't think the two sides are ever going to approach convergence.
I think the question that most people would ask of those so "speaking out" is a simple one - "Why"?

Why is it "wrong"? What's God got against gays? Why? For what reason? What harm does it do?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The problem is that those traditional values on marriage are conflating two issues. There's the issue of homosexuality and treating homosexuals as second class citizens who cannot choose to have sexual partners. And there's an issue of confining sexual activity to within committed partnerships.

If the church was preaching that promiscuity is harmful it could be a counter-cultural issue many people would agree with. However, when sexual morality and traditional marriage conflates preaching against promiscuity into the same issue as preaching celibacy for homosexuals. Too many people know long term stable loving gay partnerships and will discount all traditional teaching.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many conservative Christians would say that by 'speaking out' (as they would see it) against sexual relationships outsie (traditional) marriage they are being better than secular society. Your definition of 'better' is obviously different from theirs, but they would say that you are conforming to 'worldly' standards of morality.

Given these stances, I don't think the two sides are ever going to approach convergence.
Oh, but we are approaching convergeance. Not by the sides approaching convergeance but by your people slowly being stripped away as they get to know gay families or isolated. You are losing and there will be a few holdouts who have been carefully taught. But there always have been holdouts because there have always been gay people. People being carefully taught can change, ones being gay can't.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many conservative Christians would say that by 'speaking out' (as they would see it) against sexual relationships outsie (traditional) marriage they are being better than secular society. Your definition of 'better' is obviously different from theirs, but they would say that you are conforming to 'worldly' standards of morality.
So as civil partnerships are outside marriage I think we can take it from this that when conservative Christians claim that they "accept" them we can with justification doubt their honesty.

If the church is to be "prophetic" about gays because it disagrees with the view of secular morality towards them, how do you want gays to be treated differently to how secular morality treats them?
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem is that those traditional values on marriage are conflating two issues. There's the issue of homosexuality and treating homosexuals as second class citizens who cannot choose to have sexual partners. And there's an issue of confining sexual activity to within committed partnerships.

If the church was preaching that promiscuity is harmful it could be a counter-cultural issue many people would agree with. However, when sexual morality and traditional marriage conflates preaching against promiscuity into the same issue as preaching celibacy for homosexuals. Too many people know long term stable loving gay partnerships and will discount all traditional teaching.
An excellent point. When you start to teach what is self-evidently and visibly good (a stable, committed relationship between two people who happen to be of the same sex) is evil then it automatically undermines any teachings using the same logic. Because that teaching obviously leads to the result of calling good evil.

Promiscuity and homosexuality are separate issues. And allowing gay marriage and the blessing of same sex relationships condones non-promiscuous ones. Condemning gay couples for being promiscuous when they aren't (some are, some aren't) merely means that your teachings won't be taken seriously.

Christian homophobia therefore undermines any Christian teaching against promiscuity.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think I've got an accurate memory of his ministry. (Though not a recent one) And I know other poeopel who do as well. And the over-the-top demonisation posted here just makes me doubt the motives or understanding of the people who are doing it.
[Citation Needed]
Since when did the Ship become Wikipedia? Why do I need a citation for my own opinion and my own memories?

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for your reaction when GC's name was announced: bully for you. Whether or not the decision to ordain women was a good one is generally taken to be a given: what is never addressed is that there was then such an unseemly rush that some candidates were ordained who, had they been male, would never had made it through..
Here we go again. The old slurs. Oh how we love the women, what a pity they aren't up to it. Dogs standing on their hind legs and all that.

No, seriously I don't think there was an unseemly rush, I don;t think women priests in general are less competant or less spiritual or less prepared for their ministry than men priests, and if you do why not name names instead of all this "Oh everybody knows" innuendo?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
"Because God says in the Bible (or at least my reading of it*) that He doesn't like gay sex."

* The bit in brackets is rarely said, if at all [Biased]

[Sorry, reply to Karl]

[ 16. October 2012, 15:50: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many conservative Christians would say that by 'speaking out' (as they would see it) against sexual relationships outsie (traditional) marriage they are being better than secular society. Your definition of 'better' is obviously different from theirs, but they would say that you are conforming to 'worldly' standards of morality.

Given these stances, I don't think the two sides are ever going to approach convergence.
Oh, but we are approaching convergeance. Not by the sides approaching convergeance but by your people slowly being stripped away as they get to know gay families or isolated. You are losing and there will be a few holdouts who have been carefully taught.
'My people'?
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many conservative Christians would say that by 'speaking out' (as they would see it) against sexual relationships outsie (traditional) marriage they are being better than secular society. Your definition of 'better' is obviously different from theirs, but they would say that you are conforming to 'worldly' standards of morality.

Given these stances, I don't think the two sides are ever going to approach convergence.
I think the question that most people would ask of those so "speaking out" is a simple one - "Why"?

Why is it "wrong"? What's God got against gays? Why? For what reason? What harm does it do?
I wouldn't, Karl. I understand the reasons why those "speaking out"* might think God Hates Fags, or however they want to sugar-coat the message. What I can't understand, and what makes no sense to me, is why they're prepared to lie, repeatedly, to deny people basic civil, secular rights. I'm not sure what adjective springs to mind first, but "loving" and "Christlike" are so far down the list you'd need an excavator to find them.

And so on, and so on.

If they restricted themselves to saying that they believe gay marriage to be wrong, or even entirely invalid, it would be one thing. But actively campaigning to ensure that people are denied rights is quite another.


* - What a bizarre description that is of people who are just getting steadily angrier that they can't continue to discriminate against an out-group the way they always used to.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Since when did the Ship become Wikipedia? Why do I need a citation for my own opinion and my own memories?

...

and if you do why not name names instead of all this "Oh everybody knows" innuendo?
That's why. Same request. Why not actively debunk instead of all this innuendo?
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
'My people'?
People who believe "God says in the Bible (or at least my reading of it*) that He doesn't like gay sex."
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Because God says in the Bible (or at least my reading of it*) that He doesn't like gay sex."

* The bit in brackets is rarely said, if at all [Biased]

[Sorry, reply to Karl]
Yeah, but then I'd ask "Why? What's he got against it? I can understand why he's against murder and theft and stuff, but why this?"
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Hence why I put it in quotes...
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I don't want to either defend or castigate George Carey; but I think that the OPer who can put 'Lord' in scare quotes and refer to Carey as 'so-called' Lord of the realm must be perfectly capable of understanding, if not fairly well equipped to understand the viewpoint of those who do the same with 'gay marriage'. and gay 'marriage'.

Horseman Bree, you certainly do have a good point but be careful of wrong-footing yourself by falling into the same traps of those you criticize.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Because God says in the Bible (or at least my reading of it*) that He doesn't like gay sex."

* The bit in brackets is rarely said, if at all [Biased]

[Sorry, reply to Karl]
Just to be desperately boring, but God is against a lot of things. Why do we hear so much about gay sex? Is it because it is good copy and suits secular media in an attempt to cause division in His church? Something like two thirds of the people on earth are not Christians and unless you are a universalist, that is a far bigger problem for the church to deal with than gay sex or women bishops.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Because it's about sex of course. Which brings us back full circle to the church (or certain sections) succumbing to to the mores of secular culture. Of course, most conservatives won't see it that way...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because it's about sex of course. Which brings us back full circle to the church (or certain sections) succumbing to to the mores of secular culture. Of course, most conservatives won't see it that way...
More importantly, it's about sex that's enjoyed by a fairly small minority of the population. Passionately decrying other people's sins, particularly sins you don't particularly want to commit, is incredibly popular and incredibly easy. It could be argued that it's incredibly popular because it's incredibly easy.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because it's about sex of course. Which brings us back full circle to the church (or certain sections) succumbing to to the mores of secular culture. Of course, most conservatives won't see it that way...
Are you sure you have this the right way round? And that it's not the Church that imposed the purient obsessions with sex that are a part of secular culture. I'd say it's religious taboo that makes sex seem worse than violence. Those in my experience that are obsessed with sex come from the Church and those that consider it sinful, not from the non-religious parts of secular society.

If the Church actually wanted to preach the good parts that were taught in the bible, it would talk about Usury. And about leaving the gleanings at the corners of the fields.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Interesting point as to the origin, but I think a casual glance at a newsagent's shelves would suggest that The World™ is far more obsessed with sex than the Church now.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
He was also successful as a theological college lecturer.

As a bishop... Who can tell, he was only a couple of years in the job when he was appointed archbishop.
Do you know anyone from his period at Trinity or at Bath & Wells?

They may well have a different evaluation.
I was in his parish when I was a student at Durham. I have nothing but good memories of him in our church.
Which is why i didn't mention his parish work - i too have heard good words about his Durham ministry - as had Thatcher when she chose him to be AB of C.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Present topic aside, I'm concerned about the assertion that the church should conform to secular morality. Since when?! Surely the church is to the a prophetic voice to the world, not ape its values? "Do not be conformed to the pattern of the world..." and all that.
Which is what it did when Archbishop Michael Ramsey swayed the house of Lords over the Wolfenden Bill. According to a book 'Peers, Queers and Commons', it was Ramsey who changed the minds of many in the Lords and so led to the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967.

The C of E has been going backwards ever since.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
'My people'?
People who believe "God says in the Bible (or at least my reading of it*) that He doesn't like gay sex."
They forget that he doesn't like polyester either.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[ The issue of ordination of women had been simmering for years and to credit GC with introducing it won't wash: he just happened to be ABofC when it was (finally) brought in.
That's simply untrue. He'd been actively campaigning for it for years. My first reaction on hearing that he was to be the next ABC was to thank God because I was at that moment convinced we were finally about to ordain women. It was one of the things I most associated with him.
But wasn't most of the synodical legislation's spadework done under Runcie (who'd been ambivalent about it)?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:


quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think I've got an accurate memory of his ministry. (Though not a recent one) And I know other poeopel who do as well. And the over-the-top demonisation posted here just makes me doubt the motives or understanding of the people who are doing it.
[Citation Needed]

What 'understanding' would you like projected on someone appealing for politeness while making hyperbolic comparisons with concentration camp victims? What 'understanding' would you like projected onto someone who expressly refuses to sign on to the idea that gay people have human rights?
Ken: you're right to defend Carey on his record as a parish priest and pioneer of women's ordination, etc. But you pointedly ignored Justinian's comment above, as you have pointedly defended African evangelicals and others while ignoring their homophobia.
Unless you say something like 'I think evangelicals come in for much unjust criticism (on the Ship and elsewhere); as a fellow-evangelical I am going to stick up for them, but I disown any attempt to treat gay people as second-class citizens', we can only conclude that you concur in their homophobia.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many conservative Christians would say that by 'speaking out' (as they would see it) against sexual relationships outsie (traditional) marriage they are being better than secular society. Your definition of 'better' is obviously different from theirs, but they would say that you are conforming to 'worldly' standards of morality.
For that to succeed, they would have to give arguments that showed why their morality was better than the "worldly" morality they are opposing. And "this is what the Bible says" isn't sufficient.

When most "normal, decent" people disagree with you, I think it should be a sign that you've got things wrong. At the very least, it should make you work even harder to ensure that your moral standpoint is well thought out, holds water and is clearly "better" in a way that most rational people will understand (even if they don't agree). Simply dismissing such people as "worldly" is just compounding the error, as you are effectively saying that their opinions and arguments are utterly worthless.

Christians do NOT have all the answers. Not even Evangelicals.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
It's such a shame that evangelicals were at the forefront of the anti-slavery campaign (despite many 'mainline' Christians justifying the practice by the bible), and yet they are seriously lagging behind on this one.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's such a shame that evangelicals were at the forefront of the anti-slavery campaign (despite many 'mainline' Christians justifying the practice by the bible), and yet they are seriously lagging behind on this one.
Depends on where you're located. Ever hear of the Southern Baptist Convention?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
I haven't posted here since early on page one, but I am struck by two issues.

The first is this paragraph from the Fred Clark article:

quote:
“The Theological Is Personal,” Dianna Anderson writes.

She’s talking here specifically about the perennial controversy over how much equality women are to be allowed in the church, but her comments apply just as much to the “debate” over how much equality LGBT people are to be allowed in the church, and to the “debates” about how much equality both women and LGBT people are to be allowed in society as a whole . . .
Sorry, but this notion of apportioning equality lies somewhere near the base of this entire diseased tree. The idea that "equality" can somehow be doled or parceled out in slivers and bits (and/or "steps" in some "right" direction or for the precisely correct practices or nonpractices) is bullshit.

Like being pregnant, there is no way to be a little bit equal.

The second issue is that Walter Wink, whose work I found meaningful while a Christian, remains one of my heros for understanding a simple but profound dynamic of human behavior: we become what we hate. All through history, when bottom dog becomes top dog, the oppressed typically just switches positions with the oppressor, and the struggle goes on with the same ferocity, but a new set of victims.

If we hate, and hate deeply enough, we are sadly likely to adopt the very same behaviors we so despise in The Hated Other.

Lord Carey apparently considers himself persecuted. I know nothing about the man except what I read on this thread. What does it mean that he perhaps now perceives himself a victim? Is it because he was once, in some sense, the victor? That deep inside he understands some enormous reversal has taken place, and that he now deploys the strategm he learned by focusing so intently on those who at some level he saw as the foe?
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's such a shame that evangelicals were at the forefront of the anti-slavery campaign (despite many 'mainline' Christians justifying the practice by the bible), and yet they are seriously lagging behind on this one.
Exactly.

The slavery issue is one where I would indeed say that there was a "prophetic voice" that dared to go beyond where society was and point a way to something clearly better and more moral.

Unfortunately, evangelicals can't live off of that for much longer! And the history of evangelical moral statements since then has not been good. Dancing, going to the cinema, women's rights, gay rights.... It's been a long litany of trying to give a "moral lead" by saying "this is evil and must be stopped", only to be followed by abject, humiliating defeat.

(I am aware that in some people's eyes the last two are still up grabs. But in reality the game is over. Society has long since moved on and all that is left is to bury another corpse labelled "christian moral certainty")
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:


The second issue is that Walter Wink, whose work I found meaningful while a Christian, remains one of my heros for understanding a simple but profound dynamic of human behavior: we become what we hate. All through history, when bottom dog becomes top dog, the oppressed typically just switches positions with the oppressor, and the struggle goes on with the same ferocity, but a new set of victims.
I don't think that idea originated with Walter Wink. Usually it is formulated thus: we tend to tend towards the features we most hate in others.

Which is a truism, but a frightening one.

quote:
If we hate, and hate deeply enough, we are sadly likely to adopt the very same behaviors we so despise in The Hated Other.

Lord Carey apparently considers himself persecuted. I know nothing about the man except what I read on this thread. What does it mean that he perhaps now perceives himself a victim? Is it because he was once, in some sense, the victor? That deep inside he understands some enormous reversal has taken place, and that he now deploys the strategm he learned by focusing so intently on those who at some level he saw as the foe?
Well, I don't know it is proven that Lord Carey hates his opponents. But even if he did, you could argue that the truism cuts both ways - that the LGBT community is responding to him with the hate they feel from him.

I think an argument could be made that Carey is not operating out of hate. Let me give this stupid example: I understand that in some parts of the world, wearing a car seat belt is not the done thing. Indeed, foreign visitors who attempt to wear a car seat belt are implicitly offending their hosts by physically making a statement about the faith in their driving abilities.

Now, if a campaign started to save lives, those who thought that the wearing was 'unmanly' could argue that the campaign was offending them. And if there were reprisals against the campaign, they might be legitimately able to argue that they're being discriminated against because of their belief that wearing a seatbelt would save lives.

So I think it is possible to see this as a situation whereby one group is making a claim about moral behaviours which they see as (spiritually) dangerous, but which the community to which it applies takes as being bigoted - and who reply with anger.

And y'know, where does that get us?

I can see both sides: I think the actions of those who claim their religious authority trumps the rights of others to state recognition is essentially bigoted. But I can also see that they might be acting on their conscience against something that they see as morally dangerous. And, I suppose, fundamentally I don't want to become the thing I hate about them by returning bigoted thoughts with hateful speech.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I can see both sides: I think the actions of those who claim their religious authority trumps the rights of others to state recognition is essentially bigoted. But I can also see that they might be acting on their conscience against something that they see as morally dangerous. And, I suppose, fundamentally I don't want to become the thing I hate about them by returning bigoted thoughts with hateful speech.
Ironically, though, this claim of moral danger is shown up as bullshit by their attempts to appear reasonable. If they think there's some grave moral danger, that danger surely lies in the fact of homosexual relationships per se, and possibly in their public recognition by the state. But no one's arguing against any of that, and even the headbangers at C4M bend over backwards to emphasise that they're happy for gay people to continue to have civil partnerships. This whole argument is about the name of that relationship.

I'm struggling to see the semantic niceties of what the state calls a relationship it recognises independently of the church as a great moral issue of our times. YMMV.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I don't get the C4M stance either and I'm not sure it accurately reflects the views of conservative Christians, who indeed do tend to be opposed (IME) to civil partnerships and any kind of sexual gay relationship.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Albertus - another example of 'mere vulgar abuse' which you admit to on another thread. Your comments are untrue. I suspect also you have breached the confidence of colleagues to recycle gossip and slander.

The serious point is that this debate does arouse malice and hatred - on both sides. In an unscripted reply to a question seeking to co-opt him into name-calling my father, aka. Lord Carey, chose a very unfortunate way to make a very good point about the sort of dehumanising and abusive effect our choice of language can have.

I'll try, for obvious reasons, to resist making any further comment on this thread. You're all entitled to your opinions but not to making stuff up.
Spawn
It is true that i do indulge in 'mere vulgar abuse' from time to time. It is also true that I have said mildly rude things about your father (e.g. 'George-by-divine-inadvertance') on the Ship, although in the interests of good feeling I here and now give an undertaking not to do so again. But I was clerk to the Bishops' expenses team at the Church Commissioners at the time of the summer house saga and what I have given is to the best of my recollection an accurate account of how it looked from that position at time time.
A breach of confidence? Well, perhaps. Even twenty-something years on, I suppose that these things are confidential and on reflection I quite possibly should not have shared the story. There was IIRC another element to it that I would not dream of repeating because that would certainly be a breach of confidentiality.
So I stand by what I said, although I accept that on reflection the propriety of my having said it is in doubt.

[ 17. October 2012, 10:33: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Missed edit window- let me make it clear that the element that I have not included in the story is not anything which reflects discreditably on Lord Carey or on anyone else.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Has anyone ever questioned heterosexual ordinands about their sex life? I think not.

Well yes, actually. When I was going through the process twenty-odd years ago, I remember being rather gently but firmly asked by the DDO about aspoects of my relationship with my then girlfriend, and it being made clear- again in a gentle but firm way- that if we were to consider moving in together, the Diocese would really not regard it as a very good idea. This was in a notedly liberal diocese where blind eyes were happily being turned to gay relationships, and I remember saying at the time to a gay friend (since ordained) that it did feel like a rare example of gay people being treated more generously than straight ones. I suppose the argument would have been that I had the option of marrying, but it did at the time seem like a dual standard was being applied and I think it also affected that relationship for the worse.

[ 17. October 2012, 10:55: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't get the C4M stance either and I'm not sure it accurately reflects the views of conservative Christians, who indeed do tend to be opposed (IME) to civil partnerships and any kind of sexual gay relationship.
I think there's a lot more variation and nuance than you're making out there (the question is not just whether X or Y is morally right or wrong, on which opinions may vary, but whether the state should legislate on that basis), but they're engaging in political tactics to mobilise and maximise support, and they're doing it badly.

They've pitched their tent on the word "marriage" because it's on the table right now and they think (rightly) that it's much easier to raise support for a campaign on this than it would be for a campaign to abolish civil partnerships, for example. There are certainly people who would support civil partnerships but oppose same-sex marriage, and fighting on this ground theoretically makes it easier to argue their case without coming across as (to try to move back on-topic) bigots.

But arguments that civil partnerships are just fine, from people who opposed them at the time, make them look dishonest and disingenuous. And their argument that the change is unnecessary because marriage and civil partnership are basically the same anyway restricts their argument further, so the only meaningful points they can make are practical ones (which are easily solved), not moral ones. You can't argue that a change is immoral when you've just claimed to support something you consider equivalent.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
First, I think Lord Carey was very foolish indeed to invoke the Nazis and the Jews. Nevere, ever, under any circumstances do that. Ever. Trying to co-opt the martyrdom of the Jewish people under the Nazis is always insulting to their memory and always makes the one trying to do so look silly.

Is Lord Carey a bigot? Well anyone who opposes the change to the marriage laws apparently is a bigot, according to the chorus line being echoed here.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
even the headbangers at C4M bend over backwards to emphasise that they're happy for gay people to continue to have civil partnerships. This whole argument is about the name of that relationship.
That's because of the deafness to what is being said. A decision has been made that anyone who opposes this measure is an anti-gay bigot so no amount of reasoning is going to do anything. But I will make a stab here at something that really, really bugs me. Here is a summing up of the position to which I object, very clearly expressed:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The anti-gay marriage side have no good arguments. At all. Not a single fucking one. There is no better case to be made in a liberal democracy against equal rights for gays than there is against equal rights for women, or equal rights for blacks, or equal rights for left-handers, or any one else. And really, that's all that anyone needs to know about the merits.
Soooooo, it's really all about equality. If that's the issue, then I am behind you all the way, and I think there is complete justification for the outrage being expressed.

Except it isn't. It's about a re-definition of marriage which cuts out a major aspect of what defines marriage. Let me put it in the words of the Book of Common Prayer:

quote:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
That's actually at the heart of what marriage is about, in its origin and in its current definition - the place for the procreation and nurturing of children. And more crudely, it's about legitimacy. This is not a religious definition, it is simply part and parcel of the universal understanding of marriage. Even the word Matrimony is derived from this essential aspect - mater + monium, that is mother + denoting the act, or means and result of the act of motherhoodSee here for explanation of monium

So how does the matter of "equality" enter into this aspect of marriage? Please, I am still waiting to hear a good argument from the Eliab assertion which actually answers this.

Here's the rest of the BCP Preface to marriage

quote:

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
And I think that precisely is what the equality argument is about: that two people of the same sex should be legally entitled to love, support, comfort and have sex with each other.

And therefore The Great Gumby and Eliab, whom I have quoted here, and everyone else will only hear that part of it.

So may I ask, what legal rights are gay people in the UK going to gain? They already have the legal rights to those aspects of marriage through civil partnerships, to which I am not in the least bit opposed - in fact I think they are a good idea. What legal rights are they being excluded from? What grave discrimination is being perpetuated against them?

The nub of the matter is that this re-definition of marriage must exclude the rights, the well-being and good estate of children, for the sake of equality. Because if marriage needs to be about equality, then children must be written out of the definition.

[ 17. October 2012, 11:29: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
Tell me, TT, when was the last time you refused to marry a couple because one or both of them was infertile?

I've listened to the arguments. I've listened over and over and over again. I even used to believe and proclaim that homosexuality was a sin (see sig). But on examination, these arguments on marriage are hollow and empty. The more I hear from your side, the more obvious it is that you don't actually have any good arguments, and all that I'm hearing is an endless litany of distortion, scaremongering and special pleading.

I've listened, I've heard your arguments, I've considered them, and they're so weak as to be laughable.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The argument that's been aired here before is that if marriage is all about children, then the marriage of people beyond the age of child-bearing is equally invalid. That hasn't been the case so far ...

cp with Gumby

[ 17. October 2012, 11:39: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Actually, speaking as a Roman Catholic, yes, infertility is a diriment impediment to marriage. Likewise, if a couple has no intention having children, I would not be permitted to marry them.

I am not interested in what causes you to laugh. But I want you to answer the question: what legal rights are gay people being deprived of that requires the law to be changed so that marriage would have to have a different meaning which excludes the aspect of child rearing? What are the legal benefits of "marriage" that are absent from civil partnerships?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The serious point is that this debate does arouse malice and hatred - on both sides.
You are mistakenly assuming that there is some sort of moral equivalence between the two sides. There isn't any.

People who support marriage equality are overwhelmingly prepared to live and let live. There arguments are inherently liberal. They want everyone to have equal rights under the law. They are happy for people to marry, or not, or civilly partner, or not, as seems best to them. The other side don't. They want the law to continue to discriminate between groups of people. They don't want their opponents to have the same freedoms which they have.

Any malice or hatred which our side feels for yours (and personally, I'm more than willing to admit to utter contempt, but would deny that this amounts to malice or hatred) is a direct reaction to what you are doing and trying to do to people we care about. If you stopped trying to promote legal discrimination, the loathing we feel for you would almost entirely evaporate. The malice and hatred that your side has for gay people has proved considerably harder to dispel. Reason doesn't move your side an inch. Appeals to compassion or empathy are as pearls before swine. Your side (by definition) cannot bring itself to say "the law should treat straight and gay people the same" - and that is absolutely minimal courtesy in a free and civilised society.

If your side agreed to treat the other with this most basic minimum of respect, the debate would be over. Because the basic minimum of respect - that is, equal rights under the law - is all that the pro-SSM side is asking for.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Many conservative Christians would say that by 'speaking out' (as they would see it) against sexual relationships outside (traditional) marriage they are being better than secular society.
I firmly believe that sex outside marriage is wrong. But so what? This debate isn't about sexual ethics, it's about equality and legal rights.

There are people who think remarriage after divorce is wrong. There are people who think that people of their religion marrying people outside the faith is wrong. There are even a few people left who think that marrying someone of a different race is wrong. None of those people get to say that the law should not recognise those marriages.

When we finally get marriage equality, Christians will still be able to believe, and say, and teach, and argue, that God's only permitted context for sexual relations is a monogamous, heterosexual, permanent, exclusive, covenant of marriage. All that will change is that gay people who disagree will be allowed to get married in the eyes of the secular law - just as divorced people, and inter-faith and inter-racial couples can.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Just for the record, I want to respond to this:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The more I hear from your side, the more obvious it is that you don't actually have any good arguments, and all that I'm hearing is an endless litany of distortion, scaremongering and special pleading.
Please don't just put me on a "side" and lump me with the great mass of "them" because I actually agree with you about the gross statements that come from many people. A certain Cardinal north of the border and his new Archiepiscopal neighbour immediately springs to mind! I told one of my bishops that I was perplexed by the campaign for gay marriage, but that following His Eminence's outbursts I would probably vote in favour should there be a referendum!
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Is Lord Carey a bigot? Well anyone who opposes the change to the marriage laws apparently is a bigot, according to the chorus line being echoed here.
To me putting yourself on record as disagreeing with the notion that a certain group of people has human rights demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you are a bigot - do you disagree with this idea?

-Carey is a man who has expressly refused to sign a declaration saying that gay people have human rights. Not simply 'didn't sign' (over two thirds of the bishops in the UK didn't sign). But 'expressly refused to sign'.

And while we are at it.

quote:
quote:
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Under this provision gay people should be allowed to marry. No questions asked. Exactly the same factors apply here as to straight people.

quote:
quote:
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
Under this factor too gay marriage should be legal. The factors are exactly the same as for straight people.

By your own definitions, two thirds of the criteria hold. And the first criterion is not checked. At least I'm not aware the RCC refuses to marry post-menopausal women?

quote:
So may I ask, what legal rights are gay people in the UK going to gain? They already have the legal rights to those aspects of marriage through civil partnerships, to which I am not in the least bit opposed - in fact I think they are a good idea. What legal rights are they being excluded from? What grave discrimination is being perpetuated against them?
For starters the right to get married in a church assuming that their church will marry them. And the right to have religious readings, music, and symbols at their marriages. I'm not sure you are aware that right now that civil partnerships are legally not allowed to happen with any religious content.

quote:
The nub of the matter is that this re-definition of marriage must exclude the rights, the well-being and good estate of children, for the sake of equality.
Not all straight marriages have children. Not all gay marriages are without children. If not all straight marriages have children then claiming 'for the children' as a necessary precondition to marriage is simply a non-sequiteur. If at least some gay couples adopt (and they do) then there are gay couples that do intend to raise children.

If your only remaining objection to marriage is because of children, can I assume you will marry gay couples who have an intent to adopt? Or are you now decrying adoption as invalid?

Oh, and by the way, accepting that people with no intent to have children do marry cut the legs out from under your argument about changing the definition of marriage. That ship sailed. It sailed long ago. People with no intent to have children do marry and are under the normal usages of English considered to be married. That the Roman Catholic Church won't marry them is beside the point - the Roman Catholic Church hasn't had the right to define marriage in Britain since Elizabeth I took the throne. Talk about trying to redefine marriage!

[ 17. October 2012, 12:01: Message edited by: Justinian ]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
TT, if you continue to put the same tired old non-arguments as Carey, C4M et al, you can hardly be surprised if people consider you to be on their side. I'm sorry if you don't like your bedfellows very much, but the solution to that is to consider why their views are so objectionable, and modify yours accordingly. For my part, I accept that you may not agree with everything said against SSM, but from your involvement here, it's clear that you're on that side of the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Actually, speaking as a Roman Catholic, yes, infertility is a diriment impediment to marriage. Likewise, if a couple has no intention having children, I would not be permitted to marry them.
Nice side-stepping. Let's try again. When was the last time you refused to marry a couple because one or both of them was infertile? Not "no intention of having children", but infertile? And would you like to comment on this from the Catechism?
quote:
Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality and of sacrifice
More than that, though, whether or not you personally think that breeders are the be-all and end-all of marriage, the state thinks differently. Your definition isn't the only one. I'm assuming you haven't been picketing Register Offices where infertile couples are getting married (no doubt you'll tell me if you have), so how is the question of procreation relevant in the case of SSM but not marriage of infertile couples?
quote:
I am not interested in what causes you to laugh. But I want you to answer the question: what legal rights are gay people being deprived of that requires the law to be changed so that marriage would have to have a different meaning which excludes the aspect of child rearing? What are the legal benefits of "marriage" that are absent from civil partnerships?
There we are once again - dropping the moral argument in favour of the weak practical one.

What are the benefits? You mean apart from having their relationship recognised by the state in the same way as anyone else's lifelong commitment? Apart from being able to get married in a religious ceremony if they so choose, and if they can find a willing officiant? Apart from their relationship having a clear and unambiguous legal status that would be recognised throughout the world? Apart from that, you mean?

But why don't you tell me how changing the state's definition of marriage (which, as I've already mentioned, differs substantially from yours in any case) affects you in any way at all? If it's no different in your eyes, why the big fuss?
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
They want the law to continue to discriminate between groups of people. They don't want their opponents to have the same freedoms which they have.
You are quite correct. I do want the law to discriminate. I want the law to discriminate against polygamous marriages. I want the law to ensure that persons marrying are doing so freely and not under coercion. I want the law to discriminate against those who simply want to get married for fun. I want the law to discriminate based on what marriage is, and I think the place of children within the definition of marriage is part of its very meaning.

I do not want the law to discriminate against people of the same sex having a sexual, long-term and committed relationship. I am probably out of step with the RC hierarchy but I think the legal provision for such are a good thing. The rights to property and inheritance - I am quite happy with that. I cannot see what using the word marriage does to enhance those already agreed rights.

The big change to the re-definition of marriage being argued for so passionately is to write out the procreative factor and the rights and privileges it gives to children. Which I think is a massive mistake.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
So, from what I am hearing from Gumby and Justinian, it boils down to having a religious ceremony - that's the added benefit to be gained?
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I do not want the law to discriminate against people of the same sex having a sexual, long-term and committed relationship. I am probably out of step with the RC hierarchy but I think the legal provision for such are a good thing. The rights to property and inheritance - I am quite happy with that.
You and Chesterbelloc have both mentioned something along these lines at various times. I don't really know how it is in the UK, but in many--maybe even most?--RC dioceses in the US, this view publicly stated would likely cause you to be removed from parish work.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The big change to the re-definition of marriage being argued for so passionately is to write out the procreative factor and the rights and privileges it gives to children. Which I think is a massive mistake.
Can you explain how you think this will happen? As far as I am aware children born outside marriage have full rights and protections under the law, so can you explain what you are arguing here, please?
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So, from what I am hearing from Gumby and Justinian, it boils down to having a religious ceremony - that's the added benefit to be gained?
If you choose to ignore the rest of my post. [Roll Eyes]

Now if there's no practical difference between marriage and civil partnerships (and your "procreative factor" was written out of civil marriage generations ago), why does the proposal offend you so much? And please don't give me any flannel about it being unnecessary - if just one couple would rather actually be married instead of partnered, you need an actual reason to oppose it, so what's your reason?
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Justinian, you've actually hit the nail on the head: there IS legal provision for gay people through civil partnerships for the two aspects of marriage mentioned. It is the absence of the third which makes for a deficiency.

Despite whatever motives people want to ascribe, one really can be both concerned for the legal rights and protection and wellbeing of homosexual persons AND concerned about the meaning of "marriage". And really, marriage is not simply about a religious ceremony or the state adding a legal acknowledgement to a relationship. There is something fundamentally more at stake, to the extent that non-consummation is grounds for a legal annulment.

And Gumby. I was not side-stepping the issue of an infertile couple, I was trying to be scrupulously honest and answer the question behind the question. I have never been approached by an infertile couple, so I have never been placed in the position of having to deal with such a matter. But I didn't want the question behind that to be left unanswered.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
I can see that some religious people want to define marriage in their own terms. Which, in a sense, is their right.

I don't understand why they are threatened when other people want to use the same word. How is that different to accepting as legal (but, perhaps, not divinely valid) the marriage of Hindu couples (or any other religion)?

Why not just stick to your understanding and give up trying to force other people to have the same understanding? I don't get the problem.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So, from what I am hearing from Gumby and Justinian, it boils down to having a religious ceremony - that's the added benefit to be gained?
If you choose to ignore the rest of my post. [Roll Eyes]
Nope, not ignoring the rest of your reasons at all - it's just that they are already provided for under civil partnerships.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I can see that some religious people want to define marriage in their own terms. Which, in a sense, is their right.

I don't understand why they are threatened when other people want to use the same word. How is that different to accepting as legal (but, perhaps, not divinely valid) the marriage of Hindu couples (or any other religion)?

Why not just stick to your understanding and give up trying to force other people to have the same understanding? I don't get the problem.
It's not simply about the use of a word, or the religious meaning of a word. The matter at hand is not a discussion of religious liberty but the legal definition of marriage. If it's no more than the use of the word then people can knock themselves out and use whatever words they wish. But this is a proposal to rewrite the legal definition of marriage, not simply what word people choose to use.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
t's not simply about the use of a word, or the religious meaning of a word. The matter at hand is not a discussion of religious liberty but the legal definition of marriage. If it's no more than the use of the word then people can knock themselves out and use whatever words they wish. But this is a proposal to rewrite the legal definition of marriage, not simply what word people choose to use.
Well, giving black people a vote required a change in the law. I can't see that in itself makes it a more serious issue.

In a literal sense, people flout the law all the time by breaking marriage vows and refusing to have children. So what?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Except it isn't. It's about a re-definition of marriage which cuts out a major aspect of what defines marriage. Let me put it in the words of the Book of Common Prayer:

quote:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
That's actually at the heart of what marriage is about, in its origin and in its current definition - the place for the procreation and nurturing of children.
I always wonder if that's Biblical.

Also, as you observed after this, it had to do with legitimacy, which makes a heck of a lot more sense when 'wife' is essentially code for 'mother of my children'. When 'wife' started becoming 'my equal partner', suddenly the gender of the partner looks rather less relevant.

In other words, it isn't the gays that redefined marriage. It's the women.

EDIT: Oh, and also everything that was said about heterosexual couples being legally free to marry regardless of procreation. The Catholic position on this might be a different matter entirely, but the legal and Catholic definitions of marriage are already distinct and separate.

[ 17. October 2012, 12:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
[Big Grin]

Misogynist bigot!

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
[Big Grin]

Misogynist bigot!

[Big Grin]
Ahem. I didn't say the redefinition of marriage by women was bad, did I?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Interesting back-reading into that comment, Triple Tiara

('sokay I'm only after GeeD for misogyny)
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
No, but you blamed the women, as men always do, so you're still a misogynist bigot. [Biased]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
No, but you blamed the women, as men always do, so you're still a misogynist bigot. [Biased]
This must be an irregular verb. I thought I was attributing. Where did you get 'blaming' from? As a person highly likely to benefit from the conceptual changes to marriage, why on earth would I 'blame' those who brought about the conceptual change such that marriage became a life commitment between equal partners?

I would only be 'blaming' them if I was a heterosexual man who was extremely happy with the previous situation where marriage was about ensuring I could control the propagation of my genes and the inheritance of my property.

It makes about as much sense as saying that I 'blame' the inventor of contact lenses from freeing me from a life of wearing extremely thick glasses.

[ 17. October 2012, 12:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Don't get all upset just because you are being lumped together with all those misogynist bigots who always blame women for everything. You did the same so you must be one too.

[Razz]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]

Before you start sporting with me, it may be worth you reading back through the thread and seeing if I've actually been involved in the whole 'bigot' business.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by TT:

quote:

......... infertility is a diriment impediment to marriage. Likewise, if a couple has no intention having children, I would not be permitted to marry them.
I want to pry a little, and it might be out of order on a public thread and that is fair enough....but, is this actually Roman Catholic teaching? I know its been a source of debate in the CofE. I always find the debates to be very curious because they often appear to give tacit agreement to abusive and loveless unions so long as their are minors involved in the conflict and caught in the abuse; ie marriage is about the creation of children and this notion takes precedence over love. Surely to God any fool can see that the principle driving force between any marriage is the love the couple share and this must be the central consideration in their union? Procreation therefore, cannot be the first thing on the agenda; unless of course you want to preserve a teaching further down the line that you know is complete guff, but needs this odd angle in order to continue to support it? And this is the prying bit....I note you say 'I would not be permitted to marry them'. Does the careful wording suggest that your personal opinion is at variance to that of the Roman Catholic Church?
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So, from what I am hearing from Gumby and Justinian, it boils down to having a religious ceremony - that's the added benefit to be gained?
If you choose to ignore the rest of my post. [Roll Eyes]
Nope, not ignoring the rest of your reasons at all - it's just that they are already provided for under civil partnerships.
You mean civil partnerships provide for everyone to have the exact same civil recognition of their relationships? Plainly not true, that's why it has a different name. You mean wherever you go in the world, people will hear that you're civilly partnered and instantly understand that you're married? Again, not true.

If I happened to be gay, I think the one reason above all else for wanting my relationship to be called marriage would be for the security of knowing that I wouldn't one day end up arguing in a foreign language with some jobsworth who doesn't understand what civil partnership is, but would recognise a marriage certificate in 50 different languages. Don't you think it matters to know that your relationship has a genuine standing that will be understood wherever you go?

And you are being evasive. You claimed that procreation was the problem. Then you ducked and dissembled when challenged on your own church's view of infertile couples, and you haven't even begun to address civil marriages. And while you're happy to sit there as someone who's entirely unaffected by this legislation and casually say that it doesn't make any real difference and should be unnecessary, there are people who think it's very necessary. And you've yet to offer any explanation of why you're so opposed to something that makes no real difference (in your unaffected view).

In short, you're providing a textbook example of why the arguments against SSM are so unconvincing.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Soooooo, it's really all about equality. If that's the issue, then I am behind you all the way, and I think there is complete justification for the outrage being expressed.
Good. Because it is entirely about equality. That's the whole point.

quote:
Except it isn't. It's about a re-definition of marriage which cuts out a major aspect of what defines marriage.

Let me put it in the words of the Book of Common Prayer:
quote:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
That's a lie.

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that statement is false, and there is no excuse for not knowing it to be false. The law of England and Wales (which is what we are talking about) does not define a marriage with reference to children. It just doesn't.

The BCP might. The CCC might. For all I know to the contrary, the Book of Mormon might. But none of those sources of authority can properly be used to impose a legal definition of marriage in a secular society.

quote:
Even the word Matrimony is derived from this essential aspect - mater + monium, that is mother + denoting the act, or means and result of the act of motherhoodSee here for explanation of monium
Are you fucking serious, or has someone hacked your account and used it to present some parody of the most specious, faux-Catholic sophistry that they could think of?

You are using an obscure Latin etymology for an archaic English word for marriage as a reason for denying real flesh-and-blood people the same rights as others? Really?

You do know that those people who still say "matrimony" aren't thinking "which of course derives from the Latin for mother and implies procreation" don't you? So, assuming that you are serious and not just taking the piss, how on earth is the etymology even slightly relevant?

quote:
So how does the matter of "equality" enter into this aspect of marriage? Please, I am still waiting to hear a good argument from the Eliab assertion which actually answers this.
If you mean that cobblers about the meaning of the word ‘matrimony', I'm not sure I do have a good argument. I would consider "Latin etymologies should not be used to deny people legal rights" to be the sort of self-evident statement that doesn't really require one.

If you mean, marriage=children, then my arguments are:

1. Not in E&W law it doesn't.
2. Some unmarried couples have children.
3. Some married couples don't have children.
4. Some gay couples have children.

I suppose there is probably a statistical bias that more straight couple are raising children than gay couples, but that's all it is. If you think (as I do) that a married relationship is good for child-raising, then I'd ask you to agree with me that letting couples are are raising or who might raise children marry, whether they are gay or straight, is likely to be a good thing.

quote:
Here's the rest of the BCP Preface to marriage

quote:

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
And I think that precisely is what the equality argument is about: that two people of the same sex should be legally entitled to love, support, comfort and have sex with each other.
No. Utterly wrong. The equality argument is that gay people should have the same legal rights as straights. Gay people are already legally entitled to cohabit and have sex, and there is no law against anyone loving, supporting and comforting. What is missing is that gay people can't get married and straight people can. That is an inequality. The equality argument is that this is wrong.

quote:
So may I ask, what legal rights are gay people in the UK going to gain?
The right to get married.

Isn't that obvious? I'm struggling to find some sort of trick question or hidden meaning here, because the whole issue is about the right to get married.

quote:
What legal rights are they being excluded from? What grave discrimination is being perpetuated against them?
The right to get married.

quote:
What grave discrimination is being perpetuated against them?
They are not allowed to get married.

Don't you get that marriage is important to people? Obviously you do, since you clearly object strongly to a certain minority group being allowed to do it. If you thought the choice of terminology was a trivial matter of labelling, your post would just have read "meh". You think that the word marriage matters, that it means something, that it ties a relationship into a rich human tradition of love and fidelity and promises and respectability and fulfillment and shared lives and companionship. Guess what? Some gay people think that too! Gay people are actually human beings like us! Some of them even think like us! Amazing isn't it?

quote:
The nub of the matter is that this re-definition of marriage must exclude the rights, the well-being and good estate of children, for the sake of equality.
OK, I'm going with the ‘hacked account' theory. Because that's just nonsense. Gay marriage means we have to revoke laws on child care? Has there ever been so morally and intellectually bankrupt an idea argued on the Ship of Fools?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Triple Tiara, you seem to have missed my question above:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The big change to the re-definition of marriage being argued for so passionately is to write out the procreative factor and the rights and privileges it gives to children. Which I think is a massive mistake.
Can you explain how you think this will happen? As far as I am aware children born outside marriage have full rights and protections under the law, so can you explain what you are arguing here, please?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are quite correct. I do want the law to discriminate. I want the law to discriminate against polygamous marriages. I want the law to ensure that persons marrying are doing so freely and not under coercion. I want the law to discriminate against those who simply want to get married for fun.
Polygamy. Coercion. People getting married simply for fun.

Yes, of course, that it exactly what this debate is about.

Bookmark that post of yours. If, in the future, you ever begin to wonder why people lose patience and begin to show just how much scorn they have for arguments which advocate inequality, it can serve as a handy reminder.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
I've just had a thought which might shed a little more light on this. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that you're trying to explain to a small child what a civil partnership is. How would you go about it?

I'm almost certain I'd start off by saying "It's like a marriage, but..." and I suspect most people would say something very similar.

The "like a marriage" part is indicative of the aims, but it's the "but" that sticks in the craw. It's like a marriage, but it's not a marriage. It's like a marriage, but it's for perverts who don't want to marry the opposite sex. It's like a marriage, but some blokes in dresses think they own the word, so we have to call it something else.

There's no good way to end that sentence once you've started it like that. To all intents and purposes, it's a marriage, BUT - but what? What bizarre rationale can there be for supporting a situation in which a separate (but nearly identical) status is created, rather than just using the more suitable one that exists already?

Because it's important that everyone knows that "they" are different, "they" can't have the Real Thing, not like us. Give them rights if you must, but this can be a permanent reminder that some people are more equal than others. And there's the added bonus that unlike the matter of divorce, say, there's not much danger of the people campaigning for this distinction suddenly finding themselves on the other side of the divide they've created.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
TT:
quote:
it boils down to having a religious ceremony - that's the added benefit to be gained?
You seem to be suggesting here that this is a trivial benefit. I find this surprising.

However, Eliab said
quote:
The law of England and Wales (which is what we are talking about) does not define a marriage with reference to children. It just doesn't.

The BCP might. The CCC might. For all I know to the contrary, the Book of Mormon might. But none of those sources of authority can properly be used to impose a legal definition of marriage in a secular society.
In fairness to Triple Tiara, there is some justification for quoting from Anglican orders of service in a debate on the meaning of marriage in England and Wales, because the Anglican church is the established church. However, the modern order of service puts the procreation of children last in its list of three reasons to get married (mutual society, help and comfort is first) and the C of E certainly does not refuse to marry infertile couples.

And the legal definition of marriage has changed several times in the UK even within the last 150 years. The Married Women's Property Act. The various Marriage Acts. The Matrimonial Causes Act (which redefined the grounds for divorce).

The sky has not fallen yet; the religious groups who hold to different definitions of marriage are still free to do so (provided they aren't polygamists).

[ 17. October 2012, 13:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
That's actually at the heart of what marriage is about, in its origin and in its current definition - the place for the procreation and nurturing of children. And more crudely, it's about legitimacy. This is not a religious definition, it is simply part and parcel of the universal understanding of marriage. Even the word Matrimony is derived from this essential aspect - mater + monium, that is mother + denoting the act, or means and result of the act of motherhoodSee here for explanation of monium

So how does the matter of "equality" enter into this aspect of marriage? Please, I am still waiting to hear a good argument from the Eliab assertion which actually answers this.
You don't know many same sex couples, do you? Quite a few of them are raising ("nurturing", to use your word) children. In many cases these are the biological children of one of the partners ("procreation"). I'm still waiting hear an explanation about why marriage is a vital, almost critical support system for the raising of children, but only for children being raised by their heterosexual biological parents.

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The nub of the matter is that this re-definition of marriage must exclude the rights, the well-being and good estate of children [born to intact biological families], for the sake of equality. Because if marriage needs to be about equality, then children [born to intact biological families] must be written out of the definition.
Fixed your quote for you. The fact that you want to exclude children being raised by same sex couples from whatever you consider to be the benefits of marriage seems a bit . . . unequal.

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Tell me, TT, when was the last time you refused to marry a couple because one or both of them was infertile?
Irrelevant. As a non-state actor TT can exercise whatever discretion, whim, or doctrine he chooses in performing marriages. For instance, I believe Jews legally allowed to marry in TT's jurisdiction of residence, though he would likely refuse to marry them, citing the rules of his church. (That whole "members of Christ's body" thing he mentioned earlier.)

Of course, this begs the question of why the universally-applicable civil law is expected to follow the specific teachings of one particular religious sect in a fairly pluralistic society. I've yet to hear any Christian group agitating for a separate (but equal!) legal classification called a "Judaic Partnership" (or similar bureaucratese) in order to preserve the etymological purity of the word "marriage".
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Hasn't our understanding of marriage changed over the years? Yes, the BCP does give as the three reasons for marriage (in order of importance): Children, Sex, Support, and presumably that reflected the custom of the time. Modern CoE services (no idea about other denominations) reverse the order: Support, Sex, Children, and that reflects how most people see marriage today. The most important reason to get married is so that the couple publicly express their commitment to one another, come what may. Certainly I've been to the weddings of many friends (some of them ordained) where the couple have been clear that they do not want children, and the relevant prayers have been omitted. (And the prayers for children are definitely an option in the modern service, rather than compulsory.)

So, FWIW, my guess is that most modern Anglicans would not see the desire to have children as being at the heart of marriage. My guess is that it is not part of the legal definition of marriage in any western democracy either. Once that has dropped off the radar (as I believe it has) the argument for withholding the term "marriage" to same sex couples looks very shaky to me.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Marriage means joining. No-one talks about the marriage of peaches and cream and thinks that the fruit and dairy are procreating. Or, to take the example from my dictionary, no-one sees "a design that marries safety and comfort" and starts thinking about safety and comfort getting together for some serious fucking with a view to making babies.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well if this is simply an argument about semantics the naysayers have lost, because just about everyone under the age of 50 says 'married' instead of 'civilly partnered' unless they are being pedantic or in a court of law.

Language isn't tame, you know. Ask any scientist why they had to invent the word 'non-flammable' when they already had 'inflammable' to do the same job...

[ 17. October 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
For starters the right to get married in a church assuming that their church will marry them. And the right to have religious readings, music, and symbols at their marriages. I'm not sure you are aware that right now that civil partnerships are legally not allowed to happen with any religious content.
Actually that is no longer true. Civil partnerships can now legally be solemnised in any religious building - with religious rites -where the denominational/religious authorities agree. I was present at such a ceremony (the first in the UK) back in May at a Unitarian church. I don't know if any mainline Christian denominations have joined in since.

However, this means that the ball is now firmly in the court of the churches.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
One thing I want to reiterate is that there are two attempts to redefine marriage going on here. And I'm going to try to phrase it in language that will be familiar to Triple Tiara.

Those in favour of gay marriage are trying to redefine the accident of marriage. They are following the custom and practice of marriage explained by wikipedia below
quote:
Wikipedia on Marriage - first current paragraph
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage. Since 2000, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.
Using Wiki for common definitions I see little reason to claim that children are essential. And unless I am wrong, the explicit question asked in a Roman Catholic marriage service is "Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?" Note that it's not asking whether they plan to have children but whether they will accept them. And there is no mention of children in the normal wedding vows.

All those in favour of legal gay marriages want is to open up exactly the same contract to other people. One which accepts and cares for children if they happen to be there but not one intended for the purpose of bearing children.


Those against gay marriage are trying to redefine the substance of marriage. They are trying to redefine it from a contract under the law of the land to one over which the Church has oversight even when not invited. They are trying to force a fourth party in when such a party has not been invited (the three parties currently are person a, person b, and the state as representative of the law of the land). It is a change of the substance to marriage that is wanted - and one that implies that secular marriages are ilicit at best. And they are trying to change the substance in such a way that changes the purpose of marraige to be having children.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Justinian:
[qb]Actually that is no longer true. Civil partnerships can now legally be solemnised in any religious building - with religious rites -where the denominational/religious authorities agree. I was present at such a ceremony (the first in the UK) back in May at a Unitarian church. I don't know if any mainline Christian denominations have joined in since.

However, this means that the ball is now firmly in the court of the churches.
Ah, thank you. Nice to hear some good news.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well, I don't know it is proven that Lord Carey hates his opponents.
And I tried, apparently with insufficient care, to avoid saying that he did. From his description here, it seems unlikely that's what was in his heart -- but which of us can know for certain what was in that heart?

However any one of us might actually feel about Some Other, we have little or no control over how that Other experiences the ways in which we attempt to express (or even, perhaps, repress) those feelings.

I can only guess, though, that love expressed as "You're a beloved child of God and I long to welcome you into the fold, but your behavior is utterly unacceptable and you can't be part of Our Club until you stop it," might just not be perceived as all that loving by the recipient of the message. It might even be experienced as hatred, particularly when "stopping it" apparently requires meeting a standard few of us manage without struggle for a largish chunk of the life span.

Most of us identify, rightly or wrongly, with what we do. Ask a group of unacquainted adults to introduce themselves, and what do you get? "I'm an accountant," "I'm a student." "I'm retired." We might save the next layer down for further acquaintance -- I'm married, single, a parent -- but our identity is still focused on stuff we "do."

When some aspect of what we do is deemed by others as Very Bad, it hits us in that identity, the very self we are. How can that come across as anything other than utter rejection? And how can rejection not be experienced as a form of hatred?
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Triple Tiara, you seem to have missed my question above:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The big change to the re-definition of marriage being argued for so passionately is to write out the procreative factor and the rights and privileges it gives to children. Which I think is a massive mistake.
Can you explain how you think this will happen? As far as I am aware children born outside marriage have full rights and protections under the law, so can you explain what you are arguing here, please?
Outside of marriage the right of access to a child (or indeed a child's right of access to a parent) would need to be established, no? Within a marriage it is presumed.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by TT:

quote:

......... infertility is a diriment impediment to marriage. Likewise, if a couple has no intention having children, I would not be permitted to marry them.
I want to pry a little, and it might be out of order on a public thread and that is fair enough....but, is this actually Roman Catholic teaching? I know its been a source of debate in the CofE. I always find the debates to be very curious because they often appear to give tacit agreement to abusive and loveless unions so long as their are minors involved in the conflict and caught in the abuse; ie marriage is about the creation of children and this notion takes precedence over love. Surely to God any fool can see that the principle driving force between any marriage is the love the couple share and this must be the central consideration in their union? Procreation therefore, cannot be the first thing on the agenda; unless of course you want to preserve a teaching further down the line that you know is complete guff, but needs this odd angle in order to continue to support it? And this is the prying bit....I note you say 'I would not be permitted to marry them'. Does the careful wording suggest that your personal opinion is at variance to that of the Roman Catholic Church?
If marriage is simply about love, why does there need to be a legal validation of it? There are any number of couples who love each other and cohabit without any legal contract. Marriage is something more than the state saying "here's a certificate to say you love each other".

Procreation may not be the first thing on some peoples' agenda, fair enough. But are you saying the place of children born in a marriage must be written out of legislation and be dealt with separately? I have not heard that argued thus far.

As to the bit where you say you are prying: I am not trying to be evasive or to dissimulate, however my own thoughts and position on matters are irrelevant when it comes to my acting on behalf of the Church or the State as a marriage officer. I need to comply with the law of both as I am acting on their behalf. People ask me to conduct their weddings because I am authorised to do so, not on the basis of my ideas. So in posting what I did I was not trying to be disingenuous, I promise.

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

If I happened to be gay, I think the one reason above all else for wanting my relationship to be called marriage would be for the security of knowing that I wouldn't one day end up arguing in a foreign language with some jobsworth who doesn't understand what civil partnership is, but would recognise a marriage certificate in 50 different languages. Don't you think it matters to know that your relationship has a genuine standing that will be understood wherever you go?
Are gay marriages contracted in other countries legally binding in the UK at present? Genuine question to which I do not know the answer. Are you sure there is this international agreement on how you propose to alter the meaning of marriage?

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You mean civil partnerships provide for everyone to have the exact same civil recognition of their relationships? Plainly not true, that's why it has a different name.
Apart from the word marriage, what are the legal aspects which are missing?

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
And you are being evasive. You claimed that procreation was the problem. Then you ducked and dissembled when challenged on your own church's view of infertile couples, and you haven't even begun to address civil marriages. And while you're happy to sit there as someone who's entirely unaffected by this legislation and casually say that it doesn't make any real difference and should be unnecessary, there are people who think it's very necessary. And you've yet to offer any explanation of why you're so opposed to something that makes no real difference (in your unaffected view).

In short, you're providing a textbook example of why the arguments against SSM are so unconvincing.
Since marriage is something which belongs to the whole of society - that's why the state is involved - I certainly do not think I am unaffected. I don't think this apparent knock-down argument of yours actually works. I am still waiting to see what legal benefits accrue which are now lacking. It seems to boild down to religious ceremony (Angloid has indicated that is no longer the case) and the use of a word.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Are you fucking serious, or has someone hacked your account and used it to present some parody of the most specious, faux-Catholic sophistry that they could think of?

You are using an obscure Latin etymology for an archaic English word for marriage as a reason for denying real flesh-and-blood people the same rights as others? Really?

You do know that those people who still say "matrimony" aren't thinking "which of course derives from the Latin for mother and implies procreation" don't you? So, assuming that you are serious and not just taking the piss, how on earth is the etymology even slightly relevant?
Thanks Eliab - really nice reductio ad absurdum. Yeah, you know, all I was doing was precisely to base an argument on sophistry and etymology. Never mind the fact that it was an illustrative adjunct to the point I was actually making.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are quite correct. I do want the law to discriminate. I want the law to discriminate against polygamous marriages. I want the law to ensure that persons marrying are doing so freely and not under coercion. I want the law to discriminate against those who simply want to get married for fun.
Polygamy. Coercion. People getting married simply for fun.

Yes, of course, that it exactly what this debate is about.

Bookmark that post of yours. If, in the future, you ever begin to wonder why people lose patience and begin to show just how much scorn they have for arguments which advocate inequality, it can serve as a handy reminder.
Gee thanks Eliab. Yes that is what I was doing - making all those things mean the same thing. Really. Except that I wasn't - I was pointing to various aspects of marriage which are necessary elements: willingness to marry, taking it with due discretion and serious intent, not being already married. Like yeah, if I said to someone "you are already married, so no" it would be the equivalent of saying to them "you are wanting to marry someone of the same sex". Yeah, you really think I am that stupid?

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
So may I ask, what legal rights are gay people in the UK going to gain?
The right to get married.
So, you kept posting this like a mantra or a litany. It's a bit of a circular argument. I'm sorry, I don't get it. At all. It's just the word you want? I mean, the legal aspects already exist, minus the parts affecting children of a marriage. But the great big missing thing is the word marriage? That's the injustice? Because in posting that in the litany form, as you did, that appears to be what you are arguing.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Outside of marriage the right of access to a child (or indeed a child's right of access to a parent) would need to be established, no? Within a marriage it is presumed.
All it usually takes is the father signing the birth certificate for him to have parental responsibility, certainly since 1 December 2003.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Those against gay marriage are trying to redefine the substance of marriage. They are trying to redefine it from a contract under the law of the land to one over which the Church has oversight even when not invited. They are trying to force a fourth party in when such a party has not been invited (the three parties currently are person a, person b, and the state as representative of the law of the land). It is a change of the substance to marriage that is wanted - and one that implies that secular marriages are ilicit at best. And they are trying to change the substance in such a way that changes the purpose of marraige to be having children.
No. Nice try, but no. I have no religious arguments to offer in this debate - none whatsoever. I may have quoted from a religious marriage service, but it was not from my own religious perspective and was to illustrate the three dimensions of marriage which, I would argue, all go together. They are intrinsic to what marriage is and are not simply a religious perspective. The issue of children within marriage is legally provided for. That's not a religious argument, but a legal one.

Curiosity points out a 2003 change in the law that partly answers the question that I pose: should the matter of children be entirely excluded from marriage law and dealt with separately? Therefore, should marriage be defined simply as two people loving each other and the state recognising they love each other?

From a religious perspective that is actually quite easy to deal with: I would not be a marriage officer of the state - people can do the legal aspect with the legal authorities and then I would conduct a marriage in the terms which a Catholic would understand that term. I am quite relaxed about that.

But my points have nothing to do with the religious aspect. I am questioning the essence of what marriage is, which is common to the whole of society. And I question the assertion that marriage is simply a legal recognition that two people love each other.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
And Gumby. I was not side-stepping the issue of an infertile couple, I was trying to be scrupulously honest and answer the question behind the question. I have never been approached by an infertile couple, so I have never been placed in the position of having to deal with such a matter. But I didn't want the question behind that to be left unanswered.
How on earth do you know? [Confused]
Do you insist that all couples undertake medical examinations before marrying them? I expect most couples wanting to get married in church have no idea whether they are fertile or not.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting
This thread is about Lord Carey's remarks. If people want to refight the marriage/redefining marriage/civil partnerships dispute could they please move to the correct thread which I've bumped up for you.

(This includes the procreation as central to marriage argument)

thanks!
Louise
hosting off

[ 17. October 2012, 18:39: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't know it is proven that Lord Carey hates his opponents. But even if he did, you could argue that the truism cuts both ways - that the LGBT community is responding to him with the hate they feel from him.
I very much doubt that Carey hates people - I think he is a buffoon but he is certainly a sincere Christian who probably believes he is speaking the truth in love.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't know it is proven that Lord Carey hates his opponents. But even if he did, you could argue that the truism cuts both ways - that the LGBT community is responding to him with the hate they feel from him.
I very much doubt that Carey hates people - I think he is a buffoon but he is certainly a sincere Christian who probably believes he is speaking the truth in love.
Possibly. But people who sincerely speak the truth in love do not deny the human rights of those they love. He can only claim to be speaking the truth in love after his express refusal to sign the Cambridge Accord if he has a perverse idea of one or the other.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I very much doubt that Carey hates people - I think he is a buffoon but he is certainly a sincere Christian who probably believes he is speaking the truth in love.
I'm not sure whether Carey's self-image is really a good measure of his character. I mean, he obviously thinks very highly of himself, especially for the way way he's struggled with his confinement in a concentration camp (at least in his own mind). This reminds me quite a bit of Senator Trent Lott's unfortunate endorsement of the Dixiecrat ticket, which was quite a thing to do as late as 2002. The refrain I constantly heard from Lott's supporters was that he couldn't possibly be a racist, which begged the question of what, exactly, they were basing that certain conclusion on? It boiled down to "I don't want to believe he's a racist, which is conclusive proof that he's not!"

I see much the same dynamic at work here in the assertion that leo "very much doubt[s] that Carey hates people". Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but does his personal motives for endorsing a system of legal discrimination really make a difference to those on the receiving end?

I'm reminded of a scene from A Raisin in the Sun where the (white) representative of the neighborhood to which the (black) protagonists have decided to move explains to them that people from that neighborhood want to be around "their own kind", followed up by a very emphatic assurance that this is absolutely not about racial prejudice or hatred. It's just "nicer" when people "have a common background". I'm sure in his own mind that character was trying to do the family a favor, but I'm not sure that's the criterion we should be using.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Going back for the third time to the Slacktivist post, paraphrasing:

"You don't get to claim to be nice if you are trying to deny the human rights of someone else"
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't know it is proven that Lord Carey hates his opponents. But even if he did, you could argue that the truism cuts both ways - that the LGBT community is responding to him with the hate they feel from him.
I very much doubt that Carey hates people - I think he is a buffoon but he is certainly a sincere Christian who probably believes he is speaking the truth in love.
Possibly. But people who sincerely speak the truth in love do not deny the human rights of those they love. He can only claim to be speaking the truth in love after his express refusal to sign the Cambridge Accord if he has a perverse idea of one or the other.
It is very odd that I might be seen to defend Carey, given that i cannot stand the man. However, I also suggested that he was a buffoon - if he is, that might explain his inability to understand the issues in the document he refused to sign..
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is very odd that I might be seen to defend Carey, given that i cannot stand the man. However, I also suggested that he was a buffoon - if he is, that might explain his inability to understand the issues in the document he refused to sign..
In which case the man's not fit to be in charge of a lemonade stand let alone anything that even slightly touches on theology. If the man is that much of an either moral or practical illiterate he should never have been given a parish and whoever had him promoted to bishop should be defrocked for incompetence. (I'd say the same about archbishop, but that was Mrs Thatcher anyway).
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
... they're being discriminated against because of their belief that wearing a seatbelt would save lives. ... emphasis mine
It's not a belief, though. It's a sound estimate of the probabilities based on significant evidence. Way more concrete evidence than there is for "God hates fags". And yes, some Christian groups do try to find "research" that "proves" that homosexuals have shorter life spans or more illnesses or whatever, but it's generally crap research, and there's sound research on the real harm done by discrimination and prejudice.

Analogies are like cars; they all break down eventually. This one is a non-starter. You can't compare "you'll fly through a windshield at 60 km/h just like hundreds of others <splat>" to "you'll burn in Hell forever".
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And yes, some Christian groups do try to find "research" that "proves" that homosexuals have shorter life spans or more illnesses or whatever, . . .
Given that logic, you know who God hates the most? The poor!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is very odd that I might be seen to defend Carey, given that i cannot stand the man. However, I also suggested that he was a buffoon - if he is, that might explain his inability to understand the issues in the document he refused to sign..
In which case the man's not fit to be in charge of a lemonade stand let alone anything that even slightly touches on theology. If the man is that much of an either moral or practical illiterate he should never have been given a parish and whoever had him promoted to bishop should be defrocked for incompetence. (I'd say the same about archbishop, but that was Mrs Thatcher anyway).
I am on your side, remember - then again, Carey was thatcher's parting gift to the C of E - revenge for Runcie's Falklands sermon.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Carey was thatcher's parting gift to the C of E - revenge for Runcie's Falklands sermon.
Veritably - a gift that just keeps on giving....
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is very odd that I might be seen to defend Carey, given that i cannot stand the man. However, I also suggested that he was a buffoon - if he is, that might explain his inability to understand the issues in the document he refused to sign..
In which case the man's not fit to be in charge of a lemonade stand let alone anything that even slightly touches on theology. If the man is that much of an either moral or practical illiterate he should never have been given a parish and whoever had him promoted to bishop should be defrocked for incompetence. (I'd say the same about archbishop, but that was Mrs Thatcher anyway).
I have been thinking some more about this Cambridge Accord - I don't remember it, though i certainly remember that disastrous Lambeth Conference.

Apparently, only nineteen UK bishops signed it. Does that mean that the others, the majority, should also have been defrocked?

And what possible motives might they have for not signing?

One was David Hope, a man I hold in high esteem and who considered himself 'plagued' by homosexuality because:

a) He was made Principal of St. Stephen's house to clean it up. By all accounts, the sort of homosexuality he encountered there was highly immoral 9because promiscuous and abusive)

b) Tatchell and co. outed him as gay yet he was celibate - he was so hounded that he never let friends of either gender stay overnight in his spare rooms.

Eric Kemp refused to sign - anglo-catholic 'traditionalist'. I think his ilk tended to see homosexuals as a pastoral concern rather than a legal issue.

Another who refused to sign was Sentamu? Should that justify a veto on his possible preferment?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Also, i have been wondering about the context in which these bishops didn't sign.

For example, if someone produced this motion as a piece of paper on show to people on the exit to the hall in which the Lambeth debate had taken place, maybe they were exhausted and wanted to get back to their rooms and hurried past, thinking they'd debated this subject enough for one day. In which case, not so much as a refusal ad an oversight.

Or maybe I am being too charitable?

I cannot, otherwise, understand how bishops can disagree with a statement that gays deserve NOT to be beaten up etc. Even the Vatican, under cardinal Ratzinger, said as much.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Then again, if the refusal was a thoughtful response, maybe there was some prescience - "no homosexual person should ever be deprived of liberty, personal property, or civil rights because of his or her sexual orientation." could open the way to gays wanting the 'civil right' to marriage - which is where we seem to have got to.

Maybe there is also the 'right' to be ordained - some evangelicals have denied that such a right is biblical even for 'non-practicing' gays.

What about the 'liberty' to preach against the 'traditional teaching' of the church?

I am trying to fathom how Carey's and others' minds work.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have been thinking some more about this Cambridge Accord - I don't remember it, though i certainly remember that disastrous Lambeth Conference.

Apparently, only nineteen UK bishops signed it. Does that mean that the others, the majority, should also have been defrocked?
We know nothing about their motivations, so no. Did they not receive it? Did it go to the bottom of their in tray? Benefit of the doubt at this point.

quote:
One was David Hope, a man I hold in high esteem and who considered himself 'plagued' by homosexuality because:

a) He was made Principal of St. Stephen's house to clean it up. By all accounts, the sort of homosexuality he encountered there was highly immoral 9because promiscuous and abusive)

b) Tatchell and co. outed him as gay yet he was celibate - he was so hounded that he never let friends of either gender stay overnight in his spare rooms.
In his case I'll make an exception - with the provision that the man take a sabbatical. Bruised in the wars and needs to recover.

quote:
Eric Kemp refused to sign - anglo-catholic 'traditionalist'. I think his ilk tended to see homosexuals as a pastoral concern rather than a legal issue.
The 'three wise monkeys' approach. There is a very definite legal aspect and it can only have been wilful blindness tht made him not realise this could happen.

quote:
Another who refused to sign was Sentamu? Should that justify a veto on his possible preferment?
Yes. Next question?

[ 20. October 2012, 18:25: Message edited by: Justinian ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I am no fan of Sentamu and hope he doesn't get Canterbury.

As for David hope, not only did he retire from York but he retired again, owing to ill-health, from being vicar of Ilkley.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Hopefully, Bishop Tim Stephen's speech in the Lords about homophobia will be heeded.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Well, I'd never heard of the chap before, but I'm impressed by that speech. Any chance he'll get Canterbury?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
He was in the running at an earlier stage because he is the lead bishop (like a sort of chief whip) in the House of Lords.

Being anti-establishment, I wasn't that keen on his getting Canterbury but I have read several things he's written since I first became aware of him and would love it if he got the job - he is quite conservative but not nasty!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is very odd that I might be seen to defend Carey, given that i cannot stand the man. However, I also suggested that he was a buffoon - if he is, that might explain his inability to understand the issues in the document he refused to sign..
In which case the man's not fit to be in charge of a lemonade stand let alone anything that even slightly touches on theology. If the man is that much of an either moral or practical illiterate he should never have been given a parish and whoever had him promoted to bishop should be defrocked for incompetence. (I'd say the same about archbishop, but that was Mrs Thatcher anyway).
And what possible motives might they have for not signing?

One was David Hope, a man I hold in high esteem and who considered himself 'plagued' by homosexuality because:

a) He was made Principal of St. Stephen's house to clean it up. By all accounts, the sort of homosexuality he encountered there was highly immoral 9because promiscuous and abusive)

b) Tatchell and co. outed him as gay yet he was celibate - he was so hounded that he never let friends of either gender stay overnight in his spare rooms.

Eric Kemp refused to sign - anglo-catholic 'traditionalist'. I think his ilk tended to see homosexuals as a pastoral concern rather than a legal issue.

Another who refused to sign was Sentamu? that justify a veto on his possible preferment?
Still musing on this, I have just read hope's biography and discovered that Tatchell's 'outing' attempt verged on blackmail. It was also ignorant because Hope had criticised homophobia in the church and in society and reminded people that all are made in God’s image and deserving of dignity in 1992. Later, in 2003, he stated that gay clergy were amongst the most dedicated priests and that the Church’s focus on this issue was irrelevant to most people, indeed it made many hostile to the church, which should be discussing more important issues.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0