|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Am I an extremist now?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Patently bullshit.
Ever teach a child something and then follow up later? You do so in a progression, not a reversal, or obscure, twisty trail.
Though the basic analogy remains valid, teaching a nation of stroppy sinful human beings over a long period and ensuring they survive among nations even more stroppily sinful is not as straightforward as teaching a single child. And teaching the child is not necessarily all that straightforward.
It would of course have been a great deal easier for a far more coercive God who just forced everything to work out his way and gave the humans far less choice, and just made them think right rather than letting them try things out. But I suspect you'd disapprove of that too....
And oh, yes - Knopwood, please explain what you said....
Plague, annihilation of cities, ultimatums and genocide. Yeah, The OT God had a feather touch, barely can see his presence.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well this thread is just a big mess of straight people (and straight men, fancy that) who have no idea what they're talking about.
Here's a tip - listen to some actual gay people and their lived experiences, given that you have never and can never experience church as a gay person.
Yes, what a pity orfeo hasn't posted on this thread.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Here's a tip - listen to some actual gay people and their lived experiences, given that you have never and can never experience church as a gay person.
i think the encouragement to listen is very good advice. For example, Mrs B and I reckon to have learned a very great deal from a young friend of ours who came out a few years ago after a long time of private struggle. Immensely talented and of very good character, she has only narrowly avoided being broken on the wheel of rejection. Her personal story is not that far away from Vicky Beeching's, but it's been a humbling privilege to walk with her through all of this.
I've also learned a good deal from Shipmates.
Pomona, mousethief's comment about orfeo is on the point, but it's not safe to assume that all, or any, of us lack the kinds of insight which come from close friendships with folks who are not straight.
However, the impact of that on more general understandings of right and wrong is going to be variable. I think a lot of people who hold traditional views do the best they can. It's wrong to assume they are all complacent, or indifferent, or merciless. I've had conversations about this too. I know a number of folks who would like to move position, but feel they cannot do so without a loss of integrity. I get my own understanding questioned a good deal by traditionalists, do my best to explain that as well.
The principle of listening works both ways.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm straight, male and middle-aged too, Pomona, and yes, you're right, I can't enter into the experience of gay people in a church context ...
All I can do, however, is describe my own 'journey' in terms of working these things through in my own mind - so far as I am able.
Although I've 'moved on' as it were from the kind of position that Kaplan outlines, I would certainly have embraced or endorsed it to a certain extent back in the day. I cannot deny that.
Part of the issue, I think, does come down to the interpretation of NT verses - I think Kaplan is right that we cannot make the NT take a more positive line on same-sex sexual activity - nor pretend that it says anything other than what it does say on these issues.
What we can do, however, is to put these things in context and try to understand the position of people with a same-sex orientation without - hopefully - imposing our own (often hypocritical) standards and enter into judgementalism.
Let me illustrate ...
Kaplan's assertion that same-sex activity (or even inclination?) lies on the same plane as envy, gluttony, pride and similar sins does, I think, betray a very binary and somewhat 'wooden' reading of the NT texts.
There's the list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9 for instance which lists, depending on translation - 'men who have sex with men ...' 'male prostitutes' and 'homosexual offenders' among those who will not 'inherit the kingdom of God'. The list includes 'drunkards', 'swindlers'. 'adulterers', 'revilers' and so on ...
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-9.htm
Sure, very conservative Christians will sugar the pill by saying, 'well we all fall into those categories somewhere, so we are not singling out homosexuals ...'
But in practice, all too often they do.
I used to belong to a church which believed that people with same-sex attraction or homosexual tendencies, orientation - call it what we will - would somehow 'lose' that orientation - or at least find both grace and supernatural power to overcome these inclinations.
The verse they'd cite was, 'and such some of you were ...' from the following verse/s in 1 Corinthians 6:11.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-11.htm
This is what some of you were like, the narrative went, drunkards, revilers, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals even ... but now look - cue trumpet fanfare ... dan-darra-dant da ta dah! - 'You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.'
Oh, glory, glory hallelujah! There is power, power, wonder working power - power in the blood, power in the blood ... there is power, power, wonder working power in the precious blood of the Lamb!
So far, so good, so pietistic ...
But what happened when people discovered that they still had a drink problem, say - or that they were still attracted to people of the same sex even though they weren't supposed to any longer?
What then?
Looking back, yes, there were gay people around. We generally knew who they were and the elders kept a sharp eye on them ...
But at this distance now, and I've been out of all that for 15 years or so - I know of two people who went on to have gender realignment and one who is in a same-sex marriage (and is also in the Anglican ministry by all accounts) ...
So - what are we to conclude?
That the Bible is 'wrong' - or that we aren't handling it nor the situations in which we find ourselves in as nuanced and balanced a way as these complex situations demand.
This is what I find so binary about Kaplan's position.
'Either the Bible is authoritative and we obey it's very clear commands or else we ditch it altogether and ignore the holy scriptures ...'
I don't think it boils down to a straight, clear-cut choice like that. Also, rather like Mousethief, but not in as 'developed' a way as him perhaps, I also feel that there's a role for tradition/Tradition and the Church in these things ... sola scriptura is a lovely sound-bite and rallying slogan but it doesn't get us very far in terms of working out a 3-D rather than a 2-D response ...
That's my two-happ'orth and as a white, middle-class heterosexual male I'll now shut up.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well this thread is just a big mess of straight people (and straight men, fancy that) who have no idea what they're talking about.
Here's a tip - listen to some actual gay people and their lived experiences, given that you have never and can never experience church as a gay person.
Yes, what a pity orfeo hasn't posted on this thread.
Yeah, but then I gave up.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well this thread is just a big mess of straight people (and straight men, fancy that) who have no idea what they're talking about.
Here's a tip - listen to some actual gay people and their lived experiences, given that you have never and can never experience church as a gay person.
I understood that you were a bisexual woman. Unless my understanding is wrong, I shall place no weight at all upon any of your comments about gays.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't blame you for giving up, orfeo, but I'm glad you're back.
I'm still reading. I've just given up on the strand of conversation I was involved in, because I concluded it was an absolute waste of effort.
It's not impossible that some other strand of conversation will arise that it's worth contributing to.
Might I take this opportunity to applaud your own efforts on this thread, I've genuinely appreciated them.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This is what I find so binary about Kaplan's position.
'Either the Bible is authoritative and we obey it's very clear commands or else we ditch it altogether and ignore the holy scriptures ...'
Gamaliel, that is precisely the position which I have explicitly repudiated more than once, so I’m not sure why you find the need to keep bringing it up, though (see below) I have a theory.
The idea that older and more traditional churches such as the CofE handle this issue better than evangelical churches is nothing more than our old friend ecclesiastical snobbery, because for anti-Christian homosexual activists, Roman Catholicism is actually every bit as much a bete noire as evangelicalism, if not more so.
And no, we can’t enter the experience of a homosexual person in a heterosexual milieu such as orthodox Christianity, which is a reason for compassion and for not witch-hunting and persecuting individuals, but to suggest, in addition, that we have no right to hold or voice a conviction on the theological rightness or wrongness of homosexual practice is nothing but an attempt at emotional blackmail, and a bluff which needs to be called.
And FWIW, I agree that homosexuality cannot be “cured”.
My wife and I had a now deceased friend, older than we were, who had been part of what is now called the gay scene back in the days when homosexuality was illegal, and who converted to Christanity, then married, and had a family.
He really struggled, and would no doubt have been hailed as some sort of hero had he taken the easy way out and changed his mind after the emergence of the gay movement, but he persisted with his chosen commitment, and while I don’t have the faintest idea why God didn’t “cure “ him, he deserved respect for sticking with it.
And while it is true that there is a difference between a Christian committed to celibacy outside of heterosexual marriage who has SSA, and therefore no hope of sexual fulfillment, and a heterosexually inclined person who has the same commitment, but who can dream of marriage, it is also true that there are (and always have been) countless heterosexual lifelong unmarried Christians who, in each one single case, raise exactly the same theodicean issues as do Christians with SSA.
And as for homosexual practice viv a vis other sins, it is probably true that in some evangelical quarters it receives more attention than other sins (though this has not been my experience), but there are at least two reasons for this, the first being that it is relatively unambiguous compared to sins such as pride and selfishness, which are much more matters of perception and interpretation, and secondly because no-one is pretending that God is really OK with pride and selfishness, and does not condemn them.
Finally, we agree that the Bible does not permit homosexual practice or SSM, and that while we are opposed to winkling out and shaming practicing homosexuals in churches, there is no obvious answer as to what exactly IS the appropriate response.
Why, then, do you persist in taking a holier –than- thou approach in describing my approach as compared with yours, given that they are practically identical?
Much as I deplore DIY psychology, I can’t help thinking that you recognise the validity of what I have written, but feel the need to distance yourself from it because it is associated with a previous Christian persona from which you are desperately, and very obviously, trying to separate yourself.
In other words, in this context I am, for you, the representative evangelical from whom your current agenda demands that you somehow distinguish yourself at all costs.
[ 16. August 2015, 12:25: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
it is also true that there are (and always have been) countless heterosexual lifelong unmarried Christians who, in each one single case, raise exactly the same theodicean issues as do Christians with SSA.
No, they really don't raise the same issues as all. Having experienced what it's like to be a young gay Christian in his mid-20s who reaches the conclusion that he is expressly refused all possibility of ever finding love, I explicitly refute your claim that the issues are the same.
I knew there was a reason I didn't kill myself back then. It was so I was around to tell you that you are utterly, completely wrong. You are in fact peddling a horrible, pernicious lie. Oh sure, you're peddling it a terribly well-meaning way, but it's still a pernicious lie.
To equate not finding a wife with being told you are not allowed to find a husband is to trivialise the complete loss of hope the latter represents.
[ 16. August 2015, 12:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In the jurisdictions that have them (the U.K. does, the U.S. finds such speech restrictions unconstitutional) religion is almost always one of the protected categories.
In practice the theoretical distinction between hate speech laws and hate crime laws is easily blurred (religious exemptions notwithstanding) if anyone decides to make enough of an uproar about having their position publicly disagreed with or criticised.
No, it isn't. At least not to most people. You seem to be the only one who has trouble distinguishing between criticism on the one hand and assault or vandalism on the other. Though I will say you're not terribly consistent about it, sometimes getting huffy when it's pointed out that hate crimes involve violent or otherwise criminal activities and protest you'd never get involved in such things. Then there's the stuff like the post above where you claim that what you consider disagreement and criticism can be easily mistaken for arson or assault by most police and prosecutors.
So no, I don't buy your "if I walk around with a 'God Hates Fags' sign I'll end up charged with murder" argument that no one can tell the difference between hate speech and hate crimes. Can you provide any example of someone who was actually charged with the latter for actions that fall under the former?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If you've repudiated that position and I've not noticed, then I apologise, Kaplan.
However, it seems to me that you then go along a line of argument that suggests that this is, in fact, the position you DO hold rather than one which you repudiate.
Hence the comment about the gay chap you knew, 'why God did not cure him, I have no idea ...'
That is EXACTLY the line of argument used by certain health-wealth prosperity gospel charismatics when dealing with people who are not healed in healing services or in response to prayer.
At the extreme, it leads to a position that 'blames' people for their apparent failure to get healed ...
I know you would repudiate such a view just as much as I would, but your argument is implicitly heading that way ...
How many times have I heard preachers from that particular stable say things like, 'The word of God is clear. By His stripes we are healed. If you are not healed then it's time your experience lined up with the word of God and not the word of God with your experience ...' ? Well, far too many.
Sure, I'm not suggesting you are going as far as that but this is the logical conclusion of your line of argument.
There's also an implicit value judgement involved in that you have suggested that those Christians who are gay and who don't - or who are unable for whatever reason - remain celibate are somehow 'taking the easy way out.'
I will leave orfeo and Pomona to address this one. Who are you or I or anyone else to judge whether they are 'taking the easy way out' by not practising celibacy? If indeed, that's what they are doing ...?
It's none of our business anyway.
So, whilst on one level I'm coming at this from a similar direction to yourself, I'm not necessarily coming to the same conclusions. It's still work in progress for me - but from personal experience - and I can only go by that - it is certainly the case I've found that the older and more historic churches are far more understanding and pastorally sensitive in their handling of this issue - whatever their official position - than some of the independent evangelical churches I know.
I'm not making any church - RC, Orthodox, Anglican, Free Church - out to be a pariah or asking them to change their views on SSM or any other issue - I'm simply speaking as I find.
I'm not letting Anglican churches off the hook either - I've already disapprovingly cited the instance of my own parish church ... and I'll be honest, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to attend the place given some of what's going on and has gone on ...
So, less of the accusations of ecclesiastical snobbery if you please.
Also, less of the amateur psychology, thank you very much.
Yes, it's true that I do tend to tilt at certain brands of evangelical and certain brands of fundamentalist -- and yes, I'm battling my own past there to a certain extent as I've been through all of that. Tell me something I don't already know.
But it's all to easy to play the amateur psychologist in order to side-step issues or deflect some of the points I'm raising here - not out of a 'holier than thou' attitude or anything of the kind - but simply as part of the process of working these things through in my own mind.
FWIW, my stance would be in the instance of the old chap you mention that if he believed, as a matter of personal conviction, that to be gay and a Christian meant remaining celibate for the rest of his life - however difficult that might be - then that is his choice, his conviction and the onus is on the rest of us to support him in that - should that be where his conviction lay.
As it turned out, in that instance, your friend married and had a family. Again, if that's where his conviction lay - despite his struggles with his particular orientation - then that is an issue for him - and those who supported him in fellowship and love.
Yes, he deserved respect for sticking with whatever decision he reached - but would he no longer deserve respect if he chose to find a same-sex partner? Should our respect for him go out of the window if that happened?
For others, who for whatever reason, decide that celibacy or marriage to a partner of the opposite sex isn't for them then who am I or anyone else to sit as judge and jury on their decision?
We could take principles from the NT there too - not in a proof-text way - such as 'it is better to marry than to burn' or 'this is a hard saying, who can accept it?' And, most importantly - 'judge not, lest ye also be judged.'
As far as I understand it, in our local RC parish there are people who are gay and who are allowed to the chalice. The issues of what they do or don't do with their orientation is a matter between them and Almighty God - and in their context - between them and the parish priest. It is nobody else's business. It's not my business, it's not yours.
Now, I'm not RC nor am I likely to cross the Tiber anytime soon - but it strikes me as a pragmatic point that this approach is far more 'humane' than what so often goes on in certain independent evangelical settings. Or even my local Anglican parish ... where the former church-warden's sexuality became a matter for debate at a specially convened council with the vicar and his gang ...
I mean, how the **** would the vicar like it if someone convened a special meeting to discuss his sexuality or his relationship with his wife or any other issue of his own private business?
How would you have dealt with this issue in a pastoral context that would have given due weight and value to the individual concerned and also remained true to your particular evangelical convictions? It's a tricky one isn't it?
I'm not saying you're suggesting otherwise.
As for calling my bluff on 'emotional blackmail' - nonsense. I am not issuing any form of emotional blackmail. That's all in your own mind.
I'm simply working these things through and trying to feel my way through the morass.
I think we'd both agree that, whatever anyone's theological convictions, compassion and grace should be paramount. What is the best for the individual we are dealing with?
I am not for a moment suggesting that evangelicals and evangelical churches are 'obsessed' with the gay issue - but SSM is a big issue at the moment, of course.
Nor am I suggesting that every single independent evangelical church deals with gay people in a heavy-handed or pastorally inappropriate way - and that the opposite is the case in Anglican, RC or Orthodox or Lutheran or other historic church settings - far from it.
I have never once said that.
What I have said, is in that in my experience the older outfits tend to handle these issues in a more nuanced way.
That's not being 'holier than thou' - that's simply going on my own observations and experiences.
Coming back to the DIY psychology thing - yes, I do recognise, not so much the validity but more the mind-set, behind what you've written - and yes, I can see why you've taken that stance. I can also understand why you consider that I'm taking pains to distance myself from what you call the 'representative evangelical' view - embodied by yourself.
Given the shitty things I've seen done in the name of representative evangelicalism, can you blame me for that?
Evangelicalism forms part of my spiritual DNA - and I do value that aspect of my make-up as it were - but it will and can only take us so far ...
That is beginning to sound holier than thou ... so I'll stop it there ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Peace.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
From Kaplan Corday quote:
My wife and I had a now deceased friend, older than we were, who had been part of what is now called the gay scene back in the days when homosexuality was illegal, and who converted to Christanity, then married, and had a family.
He really struggled, and would no doubt have been hailed as some sort of hero had he taken the easy way out and changed his mind after the emergence of the gay movement, but he persisted with his chosen commitment, and while I don’t have the faintest idea why God didn’t “cure “ him, he deserved respect for sticking with it.
Do you still know the wife? What was her struggle like? Do you think it is in any way fair to put a woman into the position she was in?
[ 16. August 2015, 13:46: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
From Kaplan Corday quote:
My wife and I had a now deceased friend, older than we were, who had been part of what is now called the gay scene back in the days when homosexuality was illegal, and who converted to Christanity, then married, and had a family.
He really struggled, and would no doubt have been hailed as some sort of hero had he taken the easy way out and changed his mind after the emergence of the gay movement, but he persisted with his chosen commitment, and while I don’t have the faintest idea why God didn’t “cure “ him, he deserved respect for sticking with it.
"easy way out"? It is not all puppies and rainbows now, why would it have been "easy" then?
Why is compounding mistakes honourable?
Why is this any different than other reasons for divorce?
The tension which typically exists in a relationship where the partners no longer wish to be together is damaging to children. Why is that such a virtue?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure there is any 'easy way out'.
If you're gay and a Christian and you express your sexuality physically with someone of the same sex then that's hardly an 'easy way out' as you immediately bring upon yourself the opprobrium of fellow believers ... or you become wracked with guilt because you've been taught that it's not licit ... or you're booted out of fellowship ... or you 'have' to go somewhere gay-friendly like the Metropolitan Community Church and end up in some kind of gay Christian ghetto ...
Lifelong celibacy isn't easy of course, but neither, it seems to me, in a conservatively Christian context is expressing a same-sex sexuality ...
One moment Kaplan's telling us that he doesn't believe that homosexuality can be 'cured' then he's saying that he can't for the life of him understand why God doesn't 'cure' people of same-sex orientation ...
Of course, there are similar theodices and dilemmas in all sorts of other areas and not just the sexual side of things ...
No-one's suggesting otherwise.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
The Presbyterian parish I used to belong to moved very quickly when one of its most beloved elders came out in the early 1980s during the debates that lead to homosexual law reform in 1984.
They recognised him as a man of great holiness and humility, who was putting himself on the line to help others (themselves). Within a year they had named themselves as a welcoming parish for lesbians and gay men.
That's how it can go when you recognise the whole value of a person.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hence the comment about the gay chap you knew, 'why God did not cure him, I have no idea ...'
That is EXACTLY the line of argument used by certain health-wealth prosperity gospel charismatics when dealing with people who are not healed in healing services or in response to prayer.
The whole point of my placing "cured" in inverted commas was to indicate that I don't believe that SSA gets "cured" by prayer, therapy or anything else, for ANYONE.
There is an analogy with alcoholism here, in that there are countless stories of alcoholics becoming Christians and finding the grace to abstain from ever taking another drop, but no stories of their being delivered from their alcohol addiction.
The theodocean mystery of why God doesn't cure them, or why indeed he caused/allowed them to have alcoholic tendencies in the first place, is similar to that posed for a Christian by SSA.
quote:
As far as I understand it, in our local RC parish there are people who are gay and who are allowed to the chalice. The issues of what they do or don't do with their orientation is a matter between them and Almighty God - and in their context - between them and the parish priest.
First, effectively this would be the stance taken by many evangelical churches, and secondly, there are RC churches which take a far more proactive anti-gay stance.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Can I remind people to back off getting personal here? Please don't accuse others of getting 'huffy' or being 'holier than thou' or such like things. Personal conflicts and insulting remarks belong on the Hell board only - not here.
Thanks,
Louise
DH Host
hosting off
[ 16. August 2015, 23:06: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There is an analogy with alcoholism here,
No, no here isn't.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So no, I don't buy your "if I walk around with a 'God Hates Fags' sign I'll end up charged with murder" argument that no one can tell the difference between hate speech and hate crimes. Can you provide any example of someone who was actually charged with the latter for actions that fall under the former?
Now you are hopelessly confused.
Let me try to simplify it for you.
1. It is morally and legally wrong to use violence or vandalism in the cause of an opinion, I have neither said nor implied that it is, and you are a liar for suggesting otherwise.
2. It is legitimate to verbalise differences of opinion provided it does not involve threats or gratuitous abuse.
3. If you believe that freedom of expression has not been, and could not be, compromised by the ideologically driven concept of "hate speech", then you are capable of believing anything; street preachers have been arrested for simply stating that they believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I explicitly refute your claim that the issues are the same.
You can’t possibly know that.
Your experience is one which we as straight people can’t access, and which we therefore have to respectfully listen to and try to understand, even if we conclude that it does not demand a change in our convictions.
By the same token, you can’t appreciate the feelings and reactions of heterosexually inclined Christians who are not married and can see no prospect of ever being married.
Neither can I (though on the basis of sexual frustration in adolescence and early adulthood I can just begin to imagine the emotions of bitterness and injustice which they might, understandably, endure), so again, we have to at least make the effort to hear what they are saying and, as in the case of homosexually inclined Christians, busy ourselves in activities which are closer to the heart of the faith than snooping around trying to discover what they do in their private lives.
In a previous church we had a young man (in his thirties) with managed schizophrenia in our home group who loved Jesus and, as well as periodically telling us that God had told him to go off his medication, used to also regale us (my wife and I, not the whole group)with his sexual encounters while out clubbing.
It never occurred to us to notify the church leadership.
[ 17. August 2015, 05:10: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
From Kaplan Corday
quote:
By the same token, you can’t appreciate the feelings and reactions of heterosexually inclined Christians who are not married and can see no prospect of ever being married.
Neither can I (though on the basis of sexual frustration in adolescence and early adulthood I can just begin to imagine the emotions of bitterness and injustice which they might, understandably, endure),
Which shows just how much you are not using your imagination. Sexual frustration isn't the half of it. No-one to look up at in the manner of Gabriel Oak in "Far from the Madding Crowd", no-one to share a joke with, no-one to share every meal with, no-one to spot the foot of the ladder when doing DIY, no-one to hold the flat pack stuff in the right way to connect it together, no-one to do things for, no-one to do things with. Or, more seriously, no-one to defend you when the neighbours target you with their pique, no-one to make sure you go to the doctor, no-one to visit you in hospital. No-one to share the costs of living with. No-one to make it unnecessary to pay single supplements (aka penalties), or subsidise the people who can use "buy one get one free" offers. No-one to help buy a house with the aid of the "Married Man's Property Allowance" or whatever the modern equivalent is.
Oh, and religious groups which think that because you don't have family commitments you are available to give up worship to child mind for them. (Option probably not available in the case of gays.)
God didn't say it was not good for Adam not to have a sexual partner. He said it was not good for him to be alone.
Now model that on your non-understanding of homosexuals having celibacy imposed on them.
[ 17. August 2015, 07:26: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
The Presbyterian parish I used to belong to moved very quickly when one of its most beloved elders came out in the early 1980s during the debates that lead to homosexual law reform in 1984.
They recognised him as a man of great holiness and humility, who was putting himself on the line to help others (themselves). Within a year they had named themselves as a welcoming parish for lesbians and gay men.
That's how it can go when you recognise the whole value of a person.
How I wish the whole Church would do the same.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
By the same token, you can’t appreciate the feelings and reactions of heterosexually inclined Christians who are not married and can see no prospect of ever being married.
Rubbish. Of course I can. Being openly homosexual doesn't mean I have a boyfriend on tap. I completely understand the feelings of thinking that I have no prospect of finding a partner.
In fact I've had that exact thought.
So I can tell you with complete confidence that going through periods of thinking "I'm never going to find a partner" is simply not the same as thinking "I am forbidden from finding a partner". It's the fundamental difference between being in a situation as a matter of fact and being in a situation as a matter of law.
You are making a bad error in thinking that being "heterosexually inclined" has anything to do with the situation of being unable to find a partner in fact. In places where same-sex marriage is legal and churches are welcoming, "homosexually inclined" Christians experience these exact sensations.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Really, Kaplan, your last response was the equivalent of turning to a Saudi woman and saying "you can't possibly ever know what it's like to fail a driving test".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Kaplan, read what I write, not what you think I write ...
I wrote that in 'my experience' the historic Churches deal with this issue in a more humane way than some --- I wrote 'some' --- of the independent evangelical and charismatic churches.
Sure, there will be RC parishes and individuals who promote a very anti-gay agenda, sure there are terrible instances of homophobic attacks in Russia and other Orthodox countries - and some Orthodox priests have participated in them ...
So, no, I am not letting the historic Churches off the hook and suggesting that they are all fine and dandy and those nasty, unwashed, unsophisticated evangelical churches are the ones to watch and to blame.
However, in my OWN experience I have found that the evangelical and charismatic fellowships - by and large - don't deal with these issues very sensitively at all - and that people can be hurt and damaged.
That doesn't mean that the same thing can't and doesn't happen elsewhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well this thread is just a big mess of straight people (and straight men, fancy that) who have no idea what they're talking about.
Here's a tip - listen to some actual gay people and their lived experiences, given that you have never and can never experience church as a gay person.
I understood that you were a bisexual woman. Unless my understanding is wrong, I shall place no weight at all upon any of your comments about gays.
Using gay as an umbrella term here (and please don't talk about 'gays' as if they're another species, it's incredibly rude). But even if I wasn't, the treatment of gay people and the treatment of bisexual people in churches is extremely similar, so I would have rather more insight than a straight person.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
And obviously there are some other LGBT people commenting and there are straight people who are listening. I was talking about the general thrust of the thread, which feels like straight people assuming how life is for LGBT Christians without actually asking them.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...
3. If you believe that freedom of expression has not been, and could not be, compromised by the ideologically driven concept of "hate speech", then you are capable of believing anything; street preachers have been arrested for simply stating that they believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Citation needed.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
You can believe anything is a sin. Plenty of folks in the US who believe that cutting your sideburns, or marrying without your father's consent, or watching twerking on YouTube, is a sin. I personally hold (with William Burroughs) that the Oxford comma is canon, and failure to respect it damns you to perdition.
You can =say= anything is a sin. If people laugh at you, that is your problem. If you put a tin cup in front of you while you say it you may get donations.
If you get violent or intrusive about that sin -- if you start screaming at women who are not veiled, or harassing gay people, or forcibly trimming beards -- then there is a problem, and you should not be surprised when law enforcement steps in.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So no, I don't buy your "if I walk around with a 'God Hates Fags' sign I'll end up charged with murder" argument that no one can tell the difference between hate speech and hate crimes. Can you provide any example of someone who was actually charged with the latter for actions that fall under the former?
Now you are hopelessly confused.
Let me try to simplify it for you.
1. It is morally and legally wrong to use violence or vandalism in the cause of an opinion, . . .
Glad I could finally get you to change your mind on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I have neither said nor implied that it is, and you are a liar for suggesting otherwise.
I disagree. If you're going to claim that the distinction between criticism (hate speech) and violent criminality (hate crimes) is indistinct and "easily blurred", I have to take you at your word that you have trouble distinguishing between the two. Sort of like intending to tell a same-sex couple "God hates you" and then accidentally administering a beating instead because the difference between the two was "blurred". Seeing these two things as so closely equivalent that the distinction is "easily blurred" is highly problematic.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
2. It is legitimate to verbalise differences of opinion provided it does not involve threats or gratuitous abuse.
Now I'm curious. What kind of verbal abuse do you see as non-gratuitous? Why does that fall into a different legal category than "gratuitous abuse"? And who gets to make that determination?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
3. If you believe that freedom of expression has not been, and could not be, compromised by the ideologically driven concept of "hate speech", then you are capable of believing anything; street preachers have been arrested for simply stating that they believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Absolutely. Hate speech laws are an insult to any society that claims to have free speech. What I found most puzzling though is your claim that hate speech laws (which you seem to think are the same thing as hate crime laws) are one of the justifiable reasons for your hatred of homosexuals, but that you don't hate Hindus for the same reason despite the fact that every hate speech law that covers sexual orientation also covers religion. (At least any hate speech law that I'm aware of. If I've missed something let me know.) Given that in most cases sexual orientation was a later add-on to hate speech laws that already covered race and religion, why not start resenting people for those reasons first?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[qb]
1. It is morally and legally wrong to use violence or vandalism in the cause of an opinion, . . .
quote:
(Croesos in response) Glad I could finally get you to change your mind on this.
Sorry still haven't quite mastered the " " UBB thing - that last sentnce is by Croesos in response to Kaplan Corday and I hope I've made that clear....
Seriously, Croesos, you appear to be in the wrong on this one. Kaplan did not need his mind changing because he DID NOT advocate 'us(ing) violence or vandalism in the cause of an opinion' So as far as I can see your continued accusation that he did is at best a bad mistake on your part.
What he did do was use a hypothetical about "If Hindus were to act in a certain way" to attempt to make clear to you what he was objecting to, and you've gone at him somewhat like the classic fallacy-ish thing of "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?" which of course precludes the possible (but very often true) answer of "No I haven't stopped beating my wife because I never did beat her in the first place".
As far as I can recall he did not suggest that he would 'physically' fight back against that hypothetical objectionable Hindu action, just that he would object to it and non-violently resist such an imposition. He may have been a bit looser in expressing that than I would like, but I think his subsequent responses have clarified the point - not the 'change of mind' you suggest, just a clarification of what he always intended.
Could the pair of you please now drop this needless sniping so that we can get on with the actual topic? Or appeal to hosts to look over the exchange and rule on it...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Soror Magna;
quote:
Citation needed.
In this case, go on whatever browser you use and enter 'street preacher arrested' and you'll find more than enough citations from multiple media sources about more than one such incident. I won't bore you with all of them....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
And got awarded damages for host trouble...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Or even 'his'.
Missed the edit window!
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So no, I don't buy your "if I walk around with a 'God Hates Fags' sign I'll end up charged with murder" argument that no one can tell the difference between hate speech and hate crimes. Can you provide any example of someone who was actually charged with the latter for actions that fall under the former?
Now you are hopelessly confused.
Let me try to simplify it for you.
1. It is morally and legally wrong to use violence or vandalism in the cause of an opinion, I have neither said nor implied that it is, and you are a liar for suggesting otherwise.
2. It is legitimate to verbalise differences of opinion provided it does not involve threats or gratuitous abuse.
3. If you believe that freedom of expression has not been, and could not be, compromised by the ideologically driven concept of "hate speech", then you are capable of believing anything; street preachers have been arrested for simply stating that they believe that homosexuality is a sin.
hosting
I've previously warned everybody on this thread to back off personal conflicts and insults or to take it to the Hell board. Posting 'you are a liar' is an outright C3 breach.
I missed that earlier you had accused the same poster of 'spite' and paranoia' which I should have have warned about earlier. You can characterise someone's words as 'slurs' that's fine. You can find another poster's characterisation of your argument is mortally insulting - but if you want to follow that line and trade direct insults in return, it must be done on the Hell board.
Please do not continue your personal conflict with Croesos on this thread. If you think his line of argument is insulting, you need to either start a hell thread or drop it. I will be flagging this to the admins.
Thanks,
Louise
DH host.
hosting off
[ 17. August 2015, 22:50: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Soror Magna;
quote:
Citation needed.
In this case, go on whatever browser you use and enter 'street preacher arrested' and you'll find more than enough citations from multiple media sources about more than one such incident. I won't bore you with all of them....
Steve, I'm not going to waste my time reading dozens of stories of idiots arrested for trespassing or harassment or causing a disturbance or holding a parade without a permit. Show us where someone was arrested just for saying homosexuality is sinful. Nothing more. Just that.
But I bet you can't. Why? Because the aforementioned idiots can never stop at just that. It's always homosexuality is sinful AND homos are gonna fuck your kids and make them gay and poke you with needles to give you AIDS and they'll all burn in hell.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
the aforementioned idiots can never stop at just that. It's always homosexuality is sinful AND homos are gonna fuck your kids and make them gay and poke you with needles to give you AIDS and they'll all burn in hell.
Citation needed
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
your hatred of homosexuals,
Sorry, but I seem to have forgotten where I said I hated homosexuals.
I must have said it, because otherwise your statement would not be true, which is inconceivable.
Kindly assist my failing memory and quote it back to me.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
thinking "I'm never going to find a partner" is simply not the same as thinking "I am forbidden from finding a partner".
Experientially it can be exactly that.
We know a young Christian woman with quite severe cerebral palsy who, in theory, could get married, but who realistically knows she won't, and has told us she is deeply saddened by the thought, particularly as she sees her friends marrying.
Her CP means she is not typical, but there would be countless other Christians of both genders who reach the point of realising that, realistically, they are never going to marry, particularly as they get older, and for whom it is a source of grief.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
thinking "I'm never going to find a partner" is simply not the same as thinking "I am forbidden from finding a partner".
Experientially it can be exactly that.
We know a young Christian woman with quite severe cerebral palsy who, in theory, could get married, but who realistically knows she won't, and has told us she is deeply saddened by the thought, particularly as she sees her friends marrying.
Her CP means she is not typical, but there would be countless other Christians of both genders who reach the point of realising that, realistically, they are never going to marry, particularly as they get older, and for whom it is a source of grief.
Yes, and exactly the same thing is going to happen to homosexual Christians.
In the same way, should women in Saudi Arabia be permitted to drive, some of them are going to fail their driving tests.
You don't seem to grasp that you're not comparing like with like. I'm talking to you about a barrier to marriage that is unique and specific to homosexuals, because they are homosexuals, and your response is to say I can't possibly understand a barrier that applies to all people regardless of their sexuality.
It's not an equal and opposite problem. It's not a case of a disadvantage peculiar to homosexuals being balanced out by a disadvantage peculiar to heterosexuals.
I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm asking to be subject to exactly the same chances and misfortunes when it comes to relationships and love as straight people are subject to.
[ 18. August 2015, 02:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Essentially, Kaplan, you seem to be insisting that all that matters is that someone isn't married. It doesn't matter why they're not married.
And I can tell you, as an unmarried person for 2 separate reasons, that this simply isn't true. The experiences are not the same, because the solutions are not the same.
Me not being married because I'm not in a relationship is solved by working towards finding someone to be in a relationship with. By going on dates. By putting myself in situations where I can meet people. By making myself a more appealing person to be around.
Me not being married because the law forbids it can only be solved by changing the law. It's a fundamentally different process.
If my goal is to get married, then both of these issues have to be addressed, and the experience of trying to address each of them is significantly different.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I am getting lost between this thread and that in Hell. The simple fact is that for hundreds of years marriage has been a civil act, and that tradition is preserved in the Australian Marriage Act. Sure, that act permits authorised clergy to act as marriage celebrants, but the marriage itself is not a religious event.
Kaplan Corday why, therefore, cannot the state determine who can be married using the sort of principles Orfeo is arguing for? The civil consequences of a marriage could then flow equally to gays and lesbians as to the remainder of the community. It is simply removing unnecessary barriers to the exercise of a civil right.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Steve Langton and Kaplan Corday, there is a world of difference between carrying a sign saying "Gay sex acts are sinful and God will judge sinners" and one which says "Gay sex acts are wrong and we must kill those who commit them". Perhaps there are some countries where carrying the first sign would be punished, but most certainly not in any of the Western liberal democracies*. Carrying the second is an incitement to violence and thus affects the stability of the body politic; there is nothing wrong in prosecuting a person who carries such a sign.
* I cannot now remember the name of the case, but there was a Victorian Supreme Court decision a decade or so ago which said that it was not illegal to say (in effect) that we must pray for gays that God gives them the strength to cease their sinful behaviour. From memory, it involved a group called Catch the Fire ministries or something similar.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
GeeD - it may be that marriage is primarily a civil act in Australia, as it is in France. In the UK, civil registration of marriage did not start until 1837, mainly to provide an alternative for the non-conformist and catholic churches. Prior to that all registrations of marriages (and deaths and births through funerals and baptisms) were recorded in the Church of England registers. These days, marriages in the Church of England still comply with the requirements of civil marriage and the CofE church has to complete the returns for the registry office from the marriage register, not the couple.
There have been a couple of UK cases where street preachers have been arrested for being anti-homosexual in their preaching. One case, in Basildon, was accused by a lesbian of being homophobic (apologies that's the Daily Wail. The story was reported in Pink News, the Daily Wail and Christian Today.) He had recorded his preaching and has since received for damages for false arrest.
The other case was in Wimbledon in 2013, and although the arresting officer believed that the preacher was homophobic, he was released without charge according to Christian Today, if you believe Christian Today. That picture looks like Wimbledon Village, which is not where I'd expect to find a street preacher, as it's an exclusive, expensive area of London.
I would suggest that these cases of preachers being arrested are outliers that do not show that preachers are automatically arrested. I see street preachers outside tube stations and in high streets all over Greater London as I travel around, and mostly they are just ignored as part of the usual street colour.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I find both of those disturbing. Of course we do not know what the Wimbledon preacher was saying, but if it were simply along the lines that the Bible teaches that homosexual practices are sinful, then surely that cannot be an offence - homophobic though it is. There has been no incitement to violence and it is that with which the law should be concerned.
I take your point about the English (UK ?) 1837 Act and should have placed more restrictions on my post. But marriage is a civil act, with civil consequences. Apart from all the reasons which Orfeo and others have been advancing, it is simply wrong these days for civil law to attempt to enforce purely religious beliefs. It should not bar those beliefs, or their expression, but they should not dictate civil policy.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Of course we do not know what the Wimbledon preacher was saying, but if it were simply along the lines that the Bible teaches that homosexual practices are sinful, then surely that cannot be an offence - homophobic though it is.
Would it have been more or less of a civil offence if said preacher had declared, "My understanding of the Bible is that ..."? (Not that he was likely to have done).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
My point was that marriage has changed to be a civil act as canon law has been absorbed into the law of the land rather than having separate powers.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
GeeD - it may be that marriage is primarily a civil act in Australia, as it is in France. In the UK, civil registration of marriage did not start until 1837, mainly to provide an alternative for the non-conformist and catholic churches.
And it might not have been that way in Australia until after 1837 either. And it might have been different in France before Bastille Day.
Do we really care what the situation was 10 generations ago? It's only relevant if you subscribe to the view that marriage is unchangeable and immutable, which it clearly isn't. People have been mucking about with it for millennia.
Saying "it wasn't civil in the UK until 1837" is simply a highly elaborate way of saying "it's civil in the UK", the same way that saying "I didn't come out as homosexual until 2007" is an elaborate way of saying "I'm a gay man".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Sorry, I had not taken your earlier post in that light, but rather as being an historical note. I'd say that neither here nor in France is marriage primarily a civil act, but rather entirely a civil one. In both instances there can be an associated religious ceremony but the presence or absence of that has no effect on the validity of the marriage.
To clarify: until 1961, marriage was the concern of the individual states and territories. This remained so, although the Commonwealth Constitution permitted the Federal Parliament to legislate in respect of marriage. It did so, and to the extent of any inconsistency, the federal legislation prevailed. The legislation automatically makes ordained clergy in recognised religions authorised marriage celebrants. I can't tell you how many religions are recognised but basically it is any which has clergy (I can't think of any term which is apposite across different religions). So to a limited extent, there is an involvement of the civil act and religion. But to be valid, s.45 of the Act must be complied with. The marriage gains its validity from compliance with the Act and not from any canon law (or its equivalent in eg Islam or Hindu traditions).
This is very long-winded, but the point I am making is simply that while any religious body may have its own rules for the recognition of who is validly married in the eyes of that body, those rules should not interfere in the formation of the civil law.
Baptist Trainfan, I have no idea of the legal position in the UK. I'd say that as a matter of general principle the only time criminal laws should step into expression of belief is if the expression can properly be classified as inciting violence.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
