|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking crypto-homophobes
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're doing it again. The Bible was written over a very, very long period of time. There might be some debate about precisely when the passage in Genesis about 'one flesh' was written, but it sure wasn't written when the Romans were around to influence the culture in Israel.
Most excellent; Panto time.
Oh yes it was.
[ 16. August 2013, 08:31: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[QUOTE] When the Lord celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem, he reclined on a couch in the Roman fashion, with St John resting on his breast.
This is a middle eastern practice not necessarily a Roman one.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.
I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
Sorry for returning, but I really do have to answer this.
My church can not marry inter-racial couples? Who on earth ever said that?? Of course we can and do!
And as far as marriage is concerned, yes, I do conduct weddings though, as with other non-Anglican churches I either have to have a civil registrar present to hear the legal vows or, as was the case with our congregation until recently, a member of our congregation does it as an appointee of the registrar general.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're doing it again. The Bible was written over a very, very long period of time. There might be some debate about precisely when the passage in Genesis about 'one flesh' was written, but it sure wasn't written when the Romans were around to influence the culture in Israel.
Most excellent; Panto time.
Oh yes it was.
And what date, roughly, was this??
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.
I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
They can choose to be Registrars and so are bound by UK law if they do.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
[QUOTE] When the Lord celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem, he reclined on a couch in the Roman fashion, with St John resting on his breast.
This is a middle eastern practice not necessarily a Roman one.
Indeed, it's not like only the Romans did this - everyone else, including tent-dwelling nomads, had dining tables and chairs.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.
I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
They can choose to be Registrars and so are bound by UK law if they do.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.
I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
They can choose to be Registrars and so are bound by UK law if they do.
Not sure what you mean by this? That Salvation Army officers can also be employed as registrars? That would mean leaving their ministry and choosing another career. We are no registrars but we are required to have one in attendance at weddings in order to listen to those few legal vows couples have to make. Or else we have one of our own congregation, as I have said, as a nominated person.
BTW, why did you post this twice, 20 minutes apart?
[ 16. August 2013, 09:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and then, of course one must, these days, factor in the entire edifice of Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians (!)
...Oh, and I forgot Lutherans and Presbyterians.
Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Huia
Not quite.
quote:
(New Zealand) Presbyterian moderator the Rt Rev Ray Coster said a general assembly voted last October, (2012) with 75 per cent support, to uphold marriage as "the loving, faithful union of a man and a woman".
"All ministers are expected to abide by the decision that marriage is a loving, faithful union between a man and a woman," he said.
But a bid to prohibit ministers from conducting same-sex marriages narrowly failed to get the 60 per cent support needed to become church law, allowing ministers to conduct such marriages if they choose to do so.
Not quite a ringing endorsement I feel.
True,and there are some conservatives trying to prevent it, never the less it is not against church policy, and some ministers are looking forward to celebrating such marriages.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
This is a middle eastern practice not necessarily a Roman one.
Moses stipulated standing up, with suitcases packed.
Somewhere along the way Roman couches were adopted, as rather more comfortable.
The extent of Hellenic and Roman influence on the ancient Jewish world is largely underestimated, particulary in modern interpretation of Scripture. We assume a more pure Jewish culture than could have possibly existed, imo.
A comparison might be India before and after the Raj. Like it or not, imperialism has a very great effect on a culture. Roman imperialism lasted far longer in the Middle East than the Raj did in India.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...and then, of course one must, these days, factor in the entire edifice of Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Rastafarians (!)
...Oh, and I forgot Lutherans and Presbyterians.
Well the Presbytarian church in New Zealand will marry same sex couples
Huia
Not quite.
quote:
(New Zealand) Presbyterian moderator the Rt Rev Ray Coster said a general assembly voted last October, (2012) with 75 per cent support, to uphold marriage as "the loving, faithful union of a man and a woman".
"All ministers are expected to abide by the decision that marriage is a loving, faithful union between a man and a woman," he said.
But a bid to prohibit ministers from conducting same-sex marriages narrowly failed to get the 60 per cent support needed to become church law, allowing ministers to conduct such marriages if they choose to do so.
Not quite a ringing endorsement I feel.
True,and there are some conservatives trying to prevent it, never the less it is not against church policy, and some ministers are looking forward to celebrating such marriages.
Huia
And indeed, here in the UK the United Reforned Church (mix of Presbyterian and Congregational churches) has done a similar thing.
But even when you add them to the Reform Synagogues and the Society of Friends, and maybe the metropolitan church, it is still not a great movement within faith communities to solemnize same sex marriages.
I have received a lot of opposition here on the Ship and a casual observer would assume I am a minority voice like Stephen Green or the Westboro idiots. But the argument for SSMs has been taken before the great historic denominations and the smaller ones too and the case has not been accepted; the arguments for SSMs have not swayed these faith groups.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I can't recall any example in the last 20 years of a couple being refused marriage on the grounds of race -- at least not in the UK. The 1975 Race Relation Acts apply. Anecdotally, YMMV, as the USA seems to be (anecdotally at least) different on this.
Yes, but prior to that Act there were many church leaders who would have refused to marry a mixed-race couple. And no doubt they would have whined about being forced to do something that was against their tradition when the Act was passed. That's the position Mudfrog now finds himself in - repeating the whines of historical racists because he, like they, is soon going to be legally required to abandon his prejudice and bigotry.
It's like he doesn't realise that we all know his kind have been oppressing people forever, like he thinks that if he can get us to see the historical tradition behind it we'll all turn round and say "oh well, if it's traditional then it's OK". What a fuckwit!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But the argument for SSMs has been taken before the great historic denominations and the smaller ones too and the case has not been accepted; the arguments for SSMs have not swayed these faith groups.
Religion being one of the last areas of society to accept progress? Inconcievable!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
This is a middle eastern practice not necessarily a Roman one.
Moses stipulated standing up, with suitcases packed.
Ha ha ha ha LOL
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
He didn't stipulate it for every meal - just for the night of the Exodus!
Oh dear, o dear....
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wrote the last comment because one of the men, Barrie Drewitt, said this (and I'm afraid it sounds like he's having a hissy fit):
quote:
“I am still not getting what I want... It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”
These men are extremely wealthy and their attitude in this case reads like men who have got everything they want but have discovered for the very first time that their wealth can't buy them this and they don't like it!
Ooh, nice bit of selective quoting!!! The full quote puts a slightly different slant on it.
quote:
'I am a Christian - a practising Christian. My children have all been brought up as Christians and are part of the local parish church.' Mr Drewitt-Barlow, 42, who owns a surrogacy company based near the family home in Essex and is opening another in Los Angeles, added: 'If I was a Sikh I could get married at the Gurdwara. Liberal Jews can marry in the Synagogue - just not the Christians.
'It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.
He said it was a shame that he and his partner were being forced to take Christians to court to get them to recognise them, but he said the new law did not give them what they have been campaigning for.
I don't know why you think that puts a different slant on it. These men are still suing their church because the church won't do what they want it to do. Appalling behaviour - even if one agrees with SSM these men come across as utterly selfish.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And what date, roughly, was this??
There were Greek colonies in Tyre and Sidon in the 11th - 10th centuries BC, as there were all around the Mediterranean.
Nothing written down in Jewish Scriptures can by any possibility whatever predate Hellenic influence. Some embedded texts may predate it, or derive from a different source, but the Scriptures cannot be said to be totally without Hellenic content or colour.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Sorry - addressed to Hawk
And as I pointed out in Dead Horses, this couple have already successfully challenged the law, on surrogacy and adoption of surrogate children. They now have a family of 5 children, born through surrogacy.
You may see them as unnecessarily difficult, others will see them as campaigners for equality.
eta added who I was replying to around cross-post
[ 16. August 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ha ha ha ha LOL
He didn't stipulate it for every meal - just for the night of the Exodus!
Oh dear, o dear....
I am referring to the Insititution of the Last Supper, aka Passover.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 16. August 2013, 09:50: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ha ha ha ha LOL
He didn't stipulate it for every meal - just for the night of the Exodus!
Oh dear, o dear....
Fair enough. It must already be more than clear that I am not a theologian, nor a historian.
Evidently.
Nor a reader of your Bible.
[ 16. August 2013, 09:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Marvin, the conservative view is not simply 'tradition for the sake of tradition'.
I am broadly sympathetic to SSM (and also female bishops, since the arguments tend to follow similar forms). I do not really see why God has an issue with either of those things.
But on a plain reading of the Bible, he does.
Now I can try and argue that plain reading away: either on liberal the-Bible-was-written-by-human-lines, or on progressive revelation lines (which is more my view). But these are just opinions, arguments. God has not sent down a new Bible to support those arguments.
Ultimately, it is the modernisers, probably including myself, who have to make the running, not the traditionalists.
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.
I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
Sorry for returning, but I really do have to answer this.
My church can not marry inter-racial couples? Who on earth ever said that?? Of course we can and do!
And as far as marriage is concerned, yes, I do conduct weddings though, as with other non-Anglican churches I either have to have a civil registrar present to hear the legal vows or, as was the case with our congregation until recently, a member of our congregation does it as an appointee of the registrar general.
Mudfrog,
I understood Palimpsest to be saying that you can not-marry inter-racial couples, i.e. refuse to marry them, rather than that you cannot marry inter-racial couples, and I believe that churches cannot thus discriminate in the UK - but I have been wrong before ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But the argument for SSMs has been taken before the great historic denominations and the smaller ones too and the case has not been accepted; the arguments for SSMs have not swayed these faith groups.
Religion being one of the last areas of society to accept progress? Inconcievable!
Yeah, I'm looking forward to you approaching the local mosque to demand a gay wedding.
I also don't believe the church in this country is going to just accept this. I think there might be interesting times ahead.
[ 16. August 2013, 09:53: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Evidently.
Nor a reader of your Bible.
And also with you.
I double checked very rapidly, and the night of the Exodus is indeed Passover, aka the night of the Last Supper, aka the Institution of the Eucharist.
Moses stipulates standing. The Lord and his disciples recline on couches in Roman fashion.
QED.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
His church doesn't have to marry gay people just as they can not marry inter-racial couples.
I am fairly sure that Salvation Army ministers are not registrars so cannot conduct marriage ceremonies but a CofE vicar cannot refuse to marry an interracial couple for no other reason than they are an interracial couple.
Sorry for returning, but I really do have to answer this.
My church can not marry inter-racial couples? Who on earth ever said that?? Of course we can and do!
And as far as marriage is concerned, yes, I do conduct weddings though, as with other non-Anglican churches I either have to have a civil registrar present to hear the legal vows or, as was the case with our congregation until recently, a member of our congregation does it as an appointee of the registrar general.
Mudfrog,
I understood Palimpsest to be saying that you can not-marry inter-racial couples, i.e. refuse to marry them, rather than that you cannot marry inter-racial couples, and I believe that churches cannot thus discriminate in the UK - but I have been wrong before
Yes, that is indeed what he was alleging and it's a total untruth. There is no way a Salvation Army officer would refuse to marry people from different cultures and who are a different colour (btw, we are, of course, all of one race anyway - so 'inter-racial' is a misleading term.)
There is nothing in the Bible to forbid people marrying outside their culture.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Marvin, the conservative view is not simply 'tradition for the sake of tradition'.
The conservative view is inherently "tradition for the sake of tradition". In all areas. This just happens to be the one under discussion right now.
quote:
But these are just opinions, arguments.
It all is. Anyone who argues that there's a single "plain reading of scripture" after it's been translated, interpreted and redefined so many times down the centuries is an idiot. And when they then go on to ignore or reinterpret the "plain reading" in virtually every other area of life (see Mudfrog's "the difference between moral and ceremonial laws" crap above), they become a hypocritical idiot.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Evidently.
Nor a reader of your Bible.
And also with you.
I double checked very rapidly, and the night of the Exodus is indeed Passover, aka the night of the Last Supper, aka the Institution of the Eucharist.
Moses stipulates standing. The Lord and his disciples recline on couches in Roman fashion.
QED.
Standing only for that first night. There is nothing to suggest that from the first anniversary of the Exodus that had to do it all again with sandals on and stick in hand. That was only intended for a quick getaway!
The food remained the same as a memorial for the exodus but AFAIK there was not stipulation for standing, sitting, reclining or anything.
Why do you assume that all meals were taken standing up until the Romans told people they could recline??
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yeah, I'm looking forward to you approaching the local mosque to demand a gay wedding.
The local mosque aren't the ones screaming from the rooftops that it shouldn't be allowed.
Of course, they wouldn't marry me anyway, what with me not being Muslim and all.
quote:
I also don't believe the church in this country is going to just accept this. I think there might be interesting times ahead.
Then it is wrong. And if by "interesting times" you mean the continued decline into irrelevance of the Christian faith and the disestablishment of the Church of England, then maybe that's what needs to happen. I'm firmly in favour of the latter, regardless of the church's position on SSM.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I hope you can see the conundrum here. You've got "marriage" being completed by a physical act of penetration, whereas here you agree with my line that "one flesh" is about the intimacy of a relationship and not about particular physical acts.
Nope, I don't see any conundrum there, just a false and unwarranted "either ... or" separation into flesh and spirit. Christianity is an incarnational religion, and it is entirely appropriate that its spirituality is embodied, and its embodiment is spiritual. This is of course very present in the sacraments in general, which are physical signs that bring about spiritual realities. In this particular case, the married couple itself completes the sacrament in a physical act with spiritual significance.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is fine so long as you don't treat the "one flesh" passage as an explanation of why gays can't marry. But that's precisely what Mudfrog is trying to do.
First, gays of course can marry precisely as everybody else. It just so happens that most of them do not wish to have this kind of relationship with the opposite sex. That's their choice. What this whole discussion really is about is (a) whether their relationships with partners of the same sex deserve the same privileges and rights before the law, and (b) whether everybody can be forced to call their relationships with the same sex "marriage". And it is decidedly not the case that (a) and (b) are the same question.
Second, as far as "one flesh" goes, it is in the first place simply a physical sign. At its most basic what is meant there is simply the act of copulation, so that the outer appearance of a joined body comes about. We can read in 1 Cor 6:16 that St Paul considers copulation with a prostitute to bring about "one body", but I think we can confidently say that St Paul did not intend to say that the prostitute and her suitor marry by this act. Also, this obviously makes no sense as far as adultery and fornication are concerned. Adultery does not establish polygamy, and fornication would not exist as sin if the sexual act per se did establish marriage (and thus would immediately render itself licit).
So to become "one flesh", to copulate, makes a physical sign. But it can be a false sign, as prostitution, adultery and fornication shows. The real question is hence whether homosexual copulation is a true sign, or a false sign. Gays surely can become "one flesh" as far as arranging their bodies goes, but what does that mean?
And there it becomes quite simple. You think that the sign to be made for marriage, the marital meaning to be established by copulation, is simply for a "loving relationship". I do not think so, and perhaps more relevantly, my Church does not think so. Rather it is procreation that is the central meaning established for marriage by this sign. Now please spare me the usual bullcrap. This does not exclude (but rather demands) a "loving relationship". This does not mean that all marriages have to be fruitful. This does not mean that evert marriage has to produce as many children as physiologically possible. Etc. What this however establishes is the fundamental "about-ness" of marriage, the very meaning in which it is established and from which its characteristic are derived.
And so this is what copulation, the becoming "one flesh", has to be sign for. This is quite clear in the canon I quoted above. Now, from this perspective it is obviously absurd to claim that gays can marry (their homosexual partner). What they do may be many things, but it sure is not ordered to procreation. Consequently, their copulation, their becoming "one flesh" is a false physical sign as far as a marriage anchored in procreation is concerned.
This is what I understand as "marriage". Given that language is defined by social convention, there may come a time when using this word in this manner is not helpful anymore. Maybe that time has already come, and maybe I should call this sort of thing something else now. As mentioned, "matrimony" would be a good candidate. I'm flexible that way, I do not think that I should fight too hard about mere labels. But I will not accept that I have to give up the very distinction itself.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no way a Salvation Army officer would refuse to marry people from different cultures and who are a different colour
Of course not, now. Equal rights for all races is a fight that was won (legally) decades ago, and now no right-thinking person would oppose it.
In the past though, when the battle was only just starting to be fought? I bet there were many who, like you, argued that they'd never had to marry mixed-race couples before, that they thought it profoundly wrong, and that government shouldn't impose such a fundamental change on them.
And, just like them, you and your kind will in time be seen as the utterly wrong, bigoted fuckwits that you are. I just hope it doesn't take decades to get to that point.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is what I understand as "marriage". Given that language is defined by social convention, there may come a time when using this word in this manner is not helpful anymore. Maybe that time has already come, and maybe I should call this sort of thing something else now. As mentioned, "matrimony" would be a good candidate. I'm flexible that way, I do not think that I should fight too hard about mere labels. But I will not accept that I have to give up the very distinction itself.
Indeed, that time has come. Marriage is no longer 'owned' by the Church, and therefore the word "marriage" is no longer the Church's to define.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no way a Salvation Army officer would refuse to marry people from different cultures and who are a different colour
Of course not, now. Equal rights for all races is a fight that was won (legally) decades ago, and now no right-thinking person would oppose it.
In the past though, when the battle was only just starting to be fought? I bet there were many who, like you, argued that they'd never had to marry mixed-race couples before, that they thought it profoundly wrong, and that government shouldn't impose such a fundamental change on them.
And, just like them, you and your kind will in time be seen as the utterly wrong, bigoted fuckwits that you are. I just hope it doesn't take decades to get to that point.
The Salvation Army has NEVER refused to marriage people from different cultures and of different colour.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You're doing it again. The Bible was written over a very, very long period of time. There might be some debate about precisely when the passage in Genesis about 'one flesh' was written, but it sure wasn't written when the Romans were around to influence the culture in Israel.
Most excellent; Panto time.
Oh yes it was.
And what date, roughly, was this??
orfeo is both right and wrong. Jesus quotes this passage from Genesis as Holy Scripture. If Jesus quotes it as divine revelation, there can be absolutely no doubt about its authority.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is what I understand as "marriage". Given that language is defined by social convention, there may come a time when using this word in this manner is not helpful anymore. Maybe that time has already come, and maybe I should call this sort of thing something else now. As mentioned, "matrimony" would be a good candidate. I'm flexible that way, I do not think that I should fight too hard about mere labels. But I will not accept that I have to give up the very distinction itself.
Indeed, that time has come. Marriage is no longer 'owned' by the Church, and therefore the word "marriage" is no longer the Church's to define.
Therefore we are quite at liberty to do as Ingo8 has suggested - refuse matrimony to people who basically want to celebrate their CP with a lavish day out in church; because that is what marriage has become in the eyes of the civil law: A CP celebrated in a religious building. I think what has actually happened is that people have misunderstood the difference between a wedding and a marriage.
Everything that marriage offers in law is covered by a civil partnership. What they want, as revealed so eloquently by the 'we can buy it all' Drewitts, is a wedding.
They are not bothered by the fact that noting will have changed the day after. They have not realised that the day after the ceremony they will have no more civil rights than the day before when they were civil partners.
All they want is the 'human right' (and there is no such thing) to have a day in church with a ceremony.
The fact that the UK government has given them the right to be 'married' actually is a hollow victory because actually they have gained nothing - they can't have their day in church.
They can call themselves 'married' but when they ask each other 'what has changed since we got 'married' in the registrars office?' The answer will be - nothing. They just have a different certificate to enshrine exactly the same legal rights they had when they were civil partners.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin says: And if by "interesting times" you mean the continued decline into irrelevance of the Christian faith and the disestablishment of the Church of England, then maybe that's what needs to happen.
Yes. Both of those things need to happen and both of those things would be a very good thing.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why do you assume that all meals were taken standing up until the Romans told people they could recline??
Show me where I said that.
What I said was that Roman and Hellenic influence in relation to many cultural matters, including sexuality, was pervasive in Judea, and I gave the Last Supper as just one example to be found in Scripture.
You said my comments about Roman cultural influence were nonsense and unBiblical. I gave an example from the Gospels.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus quotes this passage from Genesis as Holy Scripture. If Jesus quotes it as divine revelation, there can be absolutely no doubt about its authority.
The authority of this text is not at issue; nobody has questioned that. What is questioned is the interpretation of the text; what it means in relation to modern understandings of sexuality.
Interpretation is not canonical; therefore discussing interpretation is not attacking the authority of Scripture itself.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, but your discussion starts from the wrong temporal point - the 1stC AD - rather than that of the original Hebrew text quoted which - depending on whichever scholarly date you go with - is at least several hundred years prior to that.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Salvation Army has NEVER refused to marriage people from different cultures and of different colour.
Really? Then good, you were on the right side of that particular battle. Which only makes it more of a shame that you're on the wrong side of this one.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And there it becomes quite simple. You think that the sign to be made for marriage, the marital meaning to be established by copulation, is simply for a "loving relationship". I do not think so, and perhaps more relevantly, my Church does not think so. Rather it is procreation that is the central meaning established for marriage by this sign. Now please spare me the usual bullcrap. This does not exclude (but rather demands) a "loving relationship". This does not mean that all marriages have to be fruitful. This does not mean that evert marriage has to produce as many children as physiologically possible. Etc. What this however establishes is the fundamental "about-ness" of marriage, the very meaning in which it is established and from which its characteristic are derived.
I kind of admire the consistency of the RCC on this issue, even though I do think that refusing to marry paraplegics is rather hard=hearted, but I do not understand why post-menopausal women can get married in a Roman Catholic church.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
They can call themselves 'married' but when they ask each other 'what has changed since we got 'married' in the registrars office?' The answer will be - nothing. They just have a different certificate to enshrine exactly the same legal rights they had when they were civil partners.
Do you refuse to refer to a mixed-sex couple who get 'married' in a registry office as anything other than 'civilly partnered'?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Mudfrog - I read that quotation (in full) differently. From the full quote, he started by saying he and the family are full and practising members of their local CofE congregation. Then he said he wanted to celebrate their partnership in the community / congregation, and I read an implied "and in the eyes of God" - and they can't. That's the thing you're denying them and that's what they're fighting.
I don't think they particularly wanted a party, but a celebration of their partnership the way other couples can.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus quotes this passage from Genesis as Holy Scripture. If Jesus quotes it as divine revelation, there can be absolutely no doubt about its authority.
The authority of this text is not at issue; nobody has questioned that. What is questioned is the interpretation of the text; what it means in relation to modern understandings of sexuality.
Interpretation is not canonical; therefore discussing interpretation is not attacking the authority of Scripture itself.
If your hermeneutic depends upon "modern understandings of sexuality" then your authority isn't scripture, it is "modern understandings of sexuality". The only way to properly honour the authority of scripture is for scripture to inform and - when necessary contradict to "modern understandings of sexuality". The tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog.
[ 16. August 2013, 11:22: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Shipmate
# 11406
|
Posted
Hi all,
This is a genuine question to those who are opposed to same-sex marrage. How would allowing homosexual people the same rights to marrage as heterosexual people practically alter (either positivly or negativly) a heterosexual marrage? How would it alter your marrage (assuming you are married)?
I am not aiming this at a specific person, simply those who hold a anti-same-sex marrage view.
Thanks,
Erik
--------------------
One day I will think of something worth saying here.
Posts: 96 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no way a Salvation Army officer would refuse to marry people from different cultures and who are a different colour
Of course not, now. Equal rights for all races is a fight that was won (legally) decades ago, and now no right-thinking person would oppose it.
In the past though, when the battle was only just starting to be fought? I bet there were many who, like you, argued that they'd never had to marry mixed-race couples before, that they thought it profoundly wrong, and that government shouldn't impose such a fundamental change on them.
And, just like them, you and your kind will in time be seen as the utterly wrong, bigoted fuckwits that you are. I just hope it doesn't take decades to get to that point.
I really think that you're going off on the wrong angle to accuse certain denominations of racism, to make a point on SSM. I agree that no church is without sin but most of us are trying to do our best with what we understand of Christ's love and justice. That love and justice for us all has its grounding in the laws and teachings of God as they have been found in tradition, theology and reason and not simply in a 21st century take on morality.
Inevitably some people read that in a way that says to them that SSM's are not something they feel is right: hard though that view is, having thought it through in a free society they are entitled to hold it. What they're not entitled to do is to use it as a club.
Perhaps a little history helps here? The warmest welcome afforded to black migrants who arrived in England in the 1950's, was from the Salvation Army and other Protestant Churches.
Sadly the same can't be said of the CofE where black people were asked not to return as "they didn't upset other members of the congregation ... but they were concerned about what people might think."
To my knowledge no Baptist Church has ever behaved in the way you mention -- the Baptist Union has a sizeable number of black majority churches within it, one such West Norwood being the largest in terms of numbers in BUGB. We have had black officials at senior levels, including the Annually elected President.
There's no way of a BUGB church behaving in the way you mention. You'll find that BUGB churches have supported anti racist campaigns for many years and were in the forefront of seeking to repent and make redress to the slave trade. The salvation Army have followed a similar course of action.
A sizeable majority of Baptist Churches (with probably 100% of Independent Baptist Churches), believe they have biblical and other grounds for not performing SSM's.
Baptist eccelesiology means that the local church makes the decision. We are not led or ruled by a hierarchical diktat. A local church can choose to perform SSB's now and when it becomes possible, to register for SSM's. Some will choose to offer this, others won't - both choices being decided by the local congregation, after prayer and reflection. Any kind of insistence on doing this will result in "rebel churches" deregistering for marriages.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
The thing is, I bet Mudfrog wouldn't take any evidence of straight Christian Bridezillas and Groomzillas, be there ever so many of them, wanting 'lavish' heterosexual weddings to indicate that straight people should only be allowed non-religious civil partnerships and barred from any religious ceremony.
It's the double standard and carefully ignoring the dimension of the couple's religious faith which make this line of posting stand out as hostile to gay people, or as the Oxford English Dictionary would have it 'homophobic'.
I often substitute anti-gay for homophobic precisely for the reason of avoiding these diversions and not raising the temperature of a thread but I get truly fed up with posters who think they can post any amount of hostile anti-gay screeds, but woe betide that someone call them out on it.
I think if people are going to pull the 'redefining marriage' shtick in such a way as to make out that they as heterosexuals are the real victims, and pepper their argument with nasty attacks depending on stereotypes against gay people then they're in no position to complain if people describe their posting style as homophobic.
As I've pointed out, things have changed in that regard, at least in the UK. If you take the big headline figures from You Gov - they currently run 54% pro versus 37% against over all. But drill down into them here and you find the numbers strongly opposed to gay marriage (probably the best match for the sort of people who would argue a stridently anti case on a website) stand at 20%.
Drill down by age and you find you have to go to the 60+ age group category to find a majority against gay marriage. Startlingly, if you look at the age groups below, you'll find that in no case does overall opposition to gay marriage climb above a third. Among young people fewer than one in ten 'strongly oppose' gay marriage and only 16% oppose it overall. 77% are in favour, just short of eight out of ten. A big generational shift is going on.
So in general, if you have a large UK contingent that isn't dominated by the 60 plus age group, a strident opponent of gay marriage is going to find him or herself in a small minority - the figure drops below the overall 20%. I think in such circumstances it's not realistic to expect a big pat on the back for expressing that opinion in a gung-ho and sometimes cantankerous way.
I think that ship has sailed. Mudfrog might want to claim that strident nasty-ish opposition to gay marriage shouldn't be perceived as homophobic, but that's like thinking 'nig nog' should still be acceptable on the telly. You've lost that one.
If you don't want to have that sort of rhetoric characterised as homophobic, then you either need to post in more elderly or more conservative circles, or not post that sort of stuff. If you do want to post it, having it characterised as homophobic comes with the territory.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erik:
Hi all,
This is a genuine question to those who are opposed to same-sex marrage. How would allowing homosexual people the same rights to marrage as heterosexual people practically alter (either positivly or negativly) a heterosexual marrage? How would it alter your marrage (assuming you are married)?
I am not aiming this at a specific person, simply those who hold a anti-same-sex marrage view.
Thanks,
Erik
It wouldn't alter it at all. That's not my objection to it.
My reasons and objections? Simply put, SSM doesn't reflect my understanding of God's intention for humanity.
In practice (as in faith and belief), I'd rather be obedient where and when I can so that's the perspective I stick to. Others will see it as wrong for all sorts of reasons and I'll admit that I may be incorrect (time will tell) - but here, now, based on what I know and understand, that's where I'll stick. Doesn't stop me recognising that others' mileage may vary.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
What EM said. I would of course have to include divorce in the whole 'not forming part of God's original blueprint' thing and 'declare my interest' as a remarried divorcé....
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What EM said. I would of course have to include divorce in the whole 'not forming part of God's original blueprint' thing and 'declare my interest' as a remarried divorcé....
Indeed. And just to be balanced we in TSA would also say that sex before marriage is wrong, we would say eatra-marital sex is wrong and we would say that divorce is a failure of the ideal and TSA reserves the right not to marry a divorced person either. in fact I have to ask for permission in order to perform the marriage ceremony of a divorced person.
Marriage between divorced people is, in my opinion, an act of grace not a right they can claim.
I would never marry a man to a woman for whom he has left his first wife.
Maybe, in order to be consistent, we need to tighten up our teaching on all morality which, tbh, has become a little careless of late.
[ 16. August 2013, 12:18: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
Excuse a brief interupption, I just want to come back to the mention of gas chambers. (I know I tend to correct people about things related to the Nazis, and this may get annoying. I guess you can call me a Nazi Nazi or something.)
Gas chambers were largely used only on Jews. People with disability as well, as well as concentration camp prisoners who were "unfit to work". Experiments with Zyklon B were done on Soviet POW. Ravensbrück (the female camp) saw executions being done via gas chamber of general prisoners. Gays, priests and pastors were not put in gas chambers (well some may been used for experiments, there's one story that Polish RC priests were those used for one experiment in Dachau, though there is no documentation to verify that).
Gays (and I mean males) died in concentration camps due to the other reasons people died there (hunger, torture, malnutrition, etc.) One exception is the Klinkerwerk sub-camp, attached to Sachsenhausen, a quarry where gays were sent as part of the "extermination through work" order from Himmler.
Of course, those killed in gas chambers may have contained gay people, but not for the reason of being gay.
Gays were killed in Berlin and throughout Prussia. I know of one case in 1705. (I know this information through the Gay Museum in Berlin, where I used to work. I can't find a weblink about the killings.)
The thing is, Christians are largely readdressed the parts in the bible that contributed to anti-semitism and therefore to the Shoah. The same hasn't happened regarding how parts of the bible has contributed to homophobia and therefore the killing (say, as planned in Uganda) or the attacks on gays in, say, Wroclaw.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
