|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Baptists are in a strange situation. Until last year Accredited Ministers were forbidden to have anything to do with the ratification of Same-sex partnerships. That restriction has now been grudgingly lifted although there is still the "expectation" that they won't do it as it "might" cause a breach in fellowship. The talking goes on ...
Churches are in a different position as they are all legally independent. They therefore can decide for their buildings to be licensed for both Civil Partnerships and Equal Marriages. However I have heard that the Trustees of one local Association (the Baptist "equivalent" of a Diocese) have said they would refuse to give permission for any building on their "patch" to be so registered - which, in my view, is naughty interference in an issue which is outside their jurisdiction.
I believe that a Baptist church (in a different part of the country) is actively talking about registering; I certainly know that the Minister supports Equal Marriage. I also believe that a Congregational church in London wanted to go ahead with registering their building, but couldn't as the local Council hadn't got its act together and didn't realise that churches could apply!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I've got no particular problem with the notion that secular relationship recognition and religious relationship recognition ought to be separate. That is, after all, the situation in most countries outside the English-speaking world.
What I do have a problem with is any notion that "marriage" is some ooga-booga magical religious word that the secular authorities must refrain from using once the separation occurs. Complete nonsense from a historical or etymological standpoint.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"Marriage" is the word currently used for a wide range of relationships. Even before the expansion to include same-sex couples it was already used for civil and religious (in a wide range of traditions) unions, including many that would not be considered legitimate for many faiths - of divorced people, of people of different faiths etc. It's a word that has been used for a long time to describe unions in history, including polygamous relationships. Put simply, it's a nice general word that everyone recognises.
If a small minority of the population want to restrict relationships to a more select group, then I would suggest it's upto that minority to find an appropriate term.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Interestingly enough, before the SSM debate in Parliament our local MP sent a letter to all the religious leaders in his constituency. In it he made a clear distinction between "Civil Union" (as performed by he State) and "Marriage" (as a sacrament of the Church). He is a Roman Catholic - would this be a common RC view?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
To lighten things up, slightly:
Campbell's Soup has a great "two dads" ad. (About 1/2 way down page.) It's fun, and cleverly done.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Not everyone likes it, though.
So if I eat Star Wars Soup, do I become gay?
Yes!--with a husband, and a kid, and you get your own Campbell's Soup commercial, which will go viral, and someone else will eat Star Wars soup...
The people in the ad are a real-life family, BTW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apparently, being homosexual means that I am intrinsically drawn to each and every man and can't help but want to fornicate with them (much the same way as a straight man has an urge to sexually harass every woman he meets). All the gays in a given area live in a commune to facilitate the orgies that result.
It's a wonder you have any time to post. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apparently, being homosexual means that I am intrinsically drawn to each and every man and can't help but want to fornicate with them (much the same way as a straight man has an urge to sexually harass every woman he meets). All the gays in a given area live in a commune to facilitate the orgies that result.
It's a wonder you have any time to post.
It's all part of the Gay Agenda™. They have 'posting to text-based message boards' as an item, just above Any Other Business.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Essentially I favour that situation - a civil legal partnership which is then the convenient legal foundation of whatever various religions/philosophies practice in their distinct beliefs. This of course implies a religiously neutral state which we haven't quite got here in the UK yet.
This is exactly what same sex marriage is in the UK - as they don't happen in Church (yet) afaik.
So what's your problem?
Just the major problem that gay sex acts are wrong in Christian terms....
To be clear - I am advocating that the state should have civil partnerships of a religiously neutral kind - of which 'template' people of all kinds of belief may avail themselves for legal convenience. The state should not be further involved than that in religious marriages, and in particular there shouldn't be a state church whose marriage ceremonies still have a slightly special legal place and whose standing as state church is an unneeded and as it happens unChristian complication to these issues.
Christians should not contract 'same-sex marriages' as sexual relationships; but I can hypothetically conceive of other kinds of relationship which could benefit from a wider kind of 'civil partnership' idea.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Counter-proposal: have contracts¹ of an explicitly religious nature, and call them whatever you like. Even marriage, if you insist, as long as you don't mind it possibly being confused with what secular people - including homosexuals - use to define legal rights of personal partnership.
¹ I was going to suggest they be for opposite-sex partners, but I wouldn't want it to be discriminatory. Still, that way you get to filter however your bigoted little heart desires.
[ 18. November 2015, 22:52: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just the major problem that gay sex acts are wrong in Christian terms
No such thing. There are no sex acts that are performed by same-sex couples that cannot be performed by an opposite sex couple.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Counter-proposal: have contracts¹ of an explicitly religious nature, and call them whatever you like. Even marriage, if you insist, as long as you don't mind it possibly being confused with what secular people - including homosexuals - use to define legal rights of personal partnership.
¹ I was going to suggest they be for opposite-sex partners, but I wouldn't want it to be discriminatory. Still, that way you get to filter however your bigoted little heart desires.
I've made that proposal but apparently anti-gay Christians aren't interested in any proposition that doesn't let them order other people around.
[When you code, watch your code. —A]
[ 19. November 2015, 03:33: Message edited by: Ariston ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, I copied you in making a similar proposition. So, that puts RooK in at least third place.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
Steve, seriously - learn your etymology.
"Marriage" comes from the Latin "maritatus". It has fuck-all to do with Christianity.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Steve, seriously - learn your etymology.
"Marriage" comes from the Latin "maritatus". It has fuck-all to do with Christianity.
I am actually aware of that!! The etymology or what you call it is not really relevant to the point I've been making about the kind of relationships/partnerships the state might have in its legal 'arsenal' as it were. I did suggest that a wider concept of such partnerships might make marriage an inappropriate word because that has generally been used of the specifically sexual relationship. This is a tangent I'm not going to bother with further.
by Croesos;
quote:
I've made that proposal but apparently anti-gay Christians aren't interested in any proposition that doesn't let them order other people around.
For some reason when I clicked on that link it came back as 'not available', which makes comment a bit difficult.
I am NOT in the business of ordering other people around; in UK politics I vote for the party that back in the day introduced the concept of decriminalising homosexuality, and I do not oppose same-sex marriage for those whose beliefs may allow it. If anything I'm annoyed at those fellow-Christians who still want to delay it in the law. IF people agree with me they may wish to follow my suggestions; if not, they won't and I don't expect to have any legal power to coerce them to follow me.
by Croesos;
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Just the major problem that gay sex acts are wrong in Christian terms
No such thing. There are no sex acts that are performed by same-sex couples that cannot be performed by an opposite sex couple.
It would take too long to explain this in detail, and I'm not up for it at 1.00am here. But from my viewpoint, your argument here is simply irrelevant. I'm actually proposing to take that aspect of the issue out of Hell and try to post a serious account of my position in the thread about interpreting Biblical 'anti-gay' texts.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Fascinating news from the bird world:
quote:
...But in 2006, researchers noticed something odd: a rare type of male that looks exactly like a female, only slightly larger.
Unlike territorial males, with their coloured ruffs, head tufts and big showy displays to impress females, these female mimics pursue a different mating strategy.
In the frenzy of ruff mating, which can involve many aggressive and displaying males, copulation is a speedy process. When a female has picked a male, she presents her genital opening, or cloaca, to him, but can instead be fertilised by a female mimic, which rushes in first. ...
The weirdness doesn’t stop here. There is a third type of male that has the species’ characteristic neck feathers, albeit in drabber colours. These males don’t fight or compete in displays. Instead, they move unhindered between the territorial males.
...
This type of male is far more common than the female mimics, and seems to have evolved more recently, some 500,000 years ago, according to work by Andersson’s team. A rare event allowed the supergene to swap part of its DNA back with the original, un-inverted region, forming this inbetween type of male.
This newer strategy seems to have usurped that of the female mimics, pushing them to only 1 per cent of all males. But because all three types still exist today, each strategy must be successful in the long run – otherwise female mimics would have been pushed out long ago.
Not only is this an example of multiple reproductive strategies, it is also an example of a new strategy appearing in an existing species.
Ruff
--------------------
"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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
To those of us who believe in natural law - i.e. in some form of objective moral order - what was right in 1950 was right in 1985 and is still right today. ...
So what exactly is "natural law"? Where is it written down or codified? Is there such a thing as a Natural Supreme Court or a Natural Legislature? And why is natural law only invoked when arguing about gender and sexuality?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
To those of us who believe in natural law - i.e. in some form of objective moral order - what was right in 1950 was right in 1985 and is still right today. [/QB]
And to many people who don't believe in natural law, what was right in 1950 is right now. In fact, it takes extra mental gymnastics to do otherwise.
"Everyone" who thinks that being gay is perfectly OK now thinks that it was equally OK to be gay in 1950, or 1850, or 1050. Many of those people may well have had a different opinion on whether being gay was OK in 1950, or 1985, or whenever, but that doesn't mean that they think what is morally right has changed - it means that what they think is morally right has changed.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
And let it be known that not everybody who believes in objective morality (Yours Truly, for instance) necessarily believes in "natural law." For instance, you can be a deontologist or rule utilitarian and still believe in some sort of objective morality.
That being said, we've heard the term "natural moral law" bandied about quite a bit on this thread, as well as others. I've made the contention that it's been misused, or misunderstood, or at least used equivocally. What do you mean by "natural law," Steve?
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems all of a piece with your semantic insistence that the state should be forbidden from its longstanding practice of calling the legal unions of non-Christians, homosexuals, and (presumably) heretical Christians who don't meet up with your standards "marriage". You don't give any reason for why you're so certain that the state (and its constituent citizens) should be subservient to the semantic whims of you religious belief, but it seems to be a point of great importance to you.
Insisting that the state reserve long standing terms that applied to everyone for adherents of one state approved religion. What's the word to describe that... oh yes... How Constantinian of Steve.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
If you want a special word for partnerships of members of your faith; feel free to make one up... Sacramental Anabaptist Partners or something. Stop trying to insist words in general usage are reserved for you.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Or, pick one of the known but now rarely used words that exist. Matrimony (with or without an initial "holy"), or wedlock for example.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Just the major problem that gay sex acts are wrong in Christian terms....
As has been pointed out numerous times, you are incorrect. What I believe you meant to say is that gay people who engage in sexual acts are wrong in Christian terms. And one can make a case for this, depending upon how one translates and interprets. However, if this correct, you still have to address the behaviours the bible condones but most Christians do not.
Try addressing things which actually harm people instead of those which oppress.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Fascinating news from the bird world:
That is all because of sin, sweetie. Sin mucked about in their genes.
[ 19. November 2015, 05:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Apparently, being homosexual means that I am intrinsically drawn to each and every man and can't help but want to fornicate with them (much the same way as a straight man has an urge to sexually harass every woman he meets). All the gays in a given area live in a commune to facilitate the orgies that result.
It's a wonder you have any time to post.
Refractory period.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Palimpsest;
quote:
Insisting that the state reserve long standing terms that applied to everyone for adherents of one state approved religion. What's the word to describe that... oh yes... How Constantinian of Steve.
[Devil]
I am totally baffled; where am I supposed to have insisted on this? I'm quite happy for 'marriage' to be used about non-Christian relationships as well as Christian. I was making a somewhat different point, that it might be appropriate for a pluralist state to have a version of 'civil partnership' wider than either heterosexual or same-sex marriage, and that 'marriage' might then not be an appropriate word for that partnership in general, because it would potentially be applicable to situations we wouldn't currently describe as 'marriage'. You are all making a very much bigger deal of this than I do....
YOU CANNOT HAVE BELIEVED YOU WERE FAIRLY REPRESENTING MY POSITION - SO WHY TAKE THAT APPROACH??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha;
quote:
What I believe you meant to say is that gay people who engage in sexual acts are wrong in Christian terms.
No, actually I meant that the gay sex acts are wrong and an inappropriate way to express the love between people of the same sex. You're confusing the issues of 'being' and 'doing'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Try addressing things which actually harm people instead of those which oppress.
Mostly, I do. I'm having some difficulty with this on the Ship at the moment because Hosts/Admin are restricting my ability to argue an anti-Constantinian position on various issues.
Having said that, right now the issue does appear to be one of oppression BY gay people rather than OF them. And before you come up with the usual response to that, can I point out that the same ('Constantinian') Christians who persecuted gay people also persecuted Christians like me. Christians like me are very much opposed to oppression, even of people with whom we disagree.
As I pointed out above, I vote for the party that led in decriminalising homosexuality; but I don't therefore have to also believe that gay sex is morally right, still less that it can be 'beyond criticism'. And still less again that gay people can possibly have a 'right' to coerce ('oppress'?) everyone else into believing their conduct is right and making every concession that gay people demand....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Doc Tor;
quote:
This is Hell. Fairness is for (in this instance) Dead Horses.
Pretty much agree - trying to get it back there if possible.... But I've a suspicion Palimpsest hadn't actually realised he was being unfair??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha;
quote:
However, if this is correct, you still have to address the behaviours the bible condones but most Christians do not.
Happy to; but on other appropriate threads. Here, I'll only deal with such matters incidentally if they specifically arise.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Having said that, right now the issue does appear to be one of oppression BY gay people rather than OF them.
Bullshit. How are you being oppressed, exactly? quote:
[...]I don't therefore have to also believe that gay sex is morally right, still less that it can be 'beyond criticism'. And still less again that gay people can possibly have a 'right' to coerce ('oppress'?) everyone else into believing their conduct is right and making every concession that gay people demand....
How are you being coerced into believing anything?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Having said that, right now the issue does appear to be one of oppression BY gay people rather than OF them.
Bullshit. How are you being oppressed, exactly?
Steve Langdon can no longer discriminate illegally, which bothers a few people a great deal. He isn't allowed to refuse to trade or recruit (just as examples) on grounds of sex, nationality, race or religion, but what really sticks in his craw is that he cannot do so on grounds of sexual preference.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm having some difficulty with this on the Ship at the moment because Hosts/Admin are restricting my ability to argue an anti-Constantinian position on various issues.
How dare they enforce the ship's Commandments?!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Having said that, right now the issue does appear to be one of oppression BY gay people rather than OF them.
Bullshit. How are you being oppressed, exactly?
Steve Langdon can no longer discriminate illegally, which bothers a few people a great deal. He isn't allowed to refuse to trade or recruit (just as examples) on grounds of sex, nationality, race or religion, but what really sticks in his craw is that he cannot do so on grounds of sexual preference.
Glad I'm not the only one who is reading him that way! He's just so put upon!
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, pick one of the known but now rarely used words that exist. Matrimony (with or without an initial "holy"), or wedlock for example.
Oh, definitely with! I'm totally in favor of terminology that can be used as an excuse to add ". . . Batman!" to any sentence.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Mostly, I do. I'm having some difficulty with this on the Ship at the moment because Hosts/Admin are restricting my ability to use my anti-Constantinian hammer on every nail.
Fixed that for you.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am actually aware of that!! The etymology or what you call it is not really relevant to the point I've been making about the kind of relationships/partnerships the state might have in its legal 'arsenal' as it were. I did suggest that a wider concept of such partnerships might make marriage an inappropriate word because that has generally been used of the specifically sexual relationship. This is a tangent I'm not going to bother with further.
There you go Steve. People want to have the state marry them; Christians, Non-Christians, Gay and Straight. You want to make it some larger proposal instead where the term marriage isn't appropriate. Now if you want to allow both State marriage and this new wonder that you're no longer bothering with, then that would be reasonable. Otherwise it's another sad failed attempt to not allow same-sex marriage.
So are you fine with the State performing Same-Sex marriage? If so, I've misunderstood your proposal.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So are you fine with the State performing Same-Sex marriage? If so, I've misunderstood your proposal.
My impression is that SL is almost comfortable with the State taking a "neutral" position on same-sex marriage ('You can register a partnership with someone - it gives you these rights and is subject to these rules should you dissolve it, what you call your partner and what you do in the bedroom is your own business') but distinctly uncomfortable about anything that looks like endorsement of same-sex marriage ('We recognise you as a shared household and social unit and consider the stability and flourishing of your relationship to be a social good').
Certainly in the UK, legal marriage includes both neutral regulation, and positive endorsement. Because there's a limit to what government can in practice achieve, the regulation side is the more obvious, but as most "marriage" laws are in face divorce/inheritance laws, for as long as my marriage lasts, the State's role in my marriage is essentially one of recognition. I am "really" married, not just because my wife, my heart and my God all say so, but also because my society has recorded it as a fact. Opinions may legitimately vary about how much that social recognition matters.
Steve would rather take that recognition aspect of marriage away from everyone than share it with gay people. If he thinks that being socially and legally recognised as "married" is a trivial thing, of no great importance, that looks somewhat petty. If he thinks it is something of real significance, that looks incredibly spiteful. I think the incoherence in Steve's position arises from the fact that he is unsure which of those he'd rather appear to be.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
When there were proposals in Australia for a "relationship register", the general response from the homosexual community was that registration is something you do for dogs.
This is not entirely accurate, of course. We register the births of our children for example. But it does rather point to the fact that committed sexual relationships are SUPPOSED to be regarded as special, not something that is stamped on a government form in exactly the same way as anything else.
If marriage wasn't culturally special, people wouldn't be expressing such strong views about it, so it doesn't really gel to suggest it would be fine if we changed official recognition of it to be on the same level as any other bit of paperwork.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If marriage wasn't culturally special, people wouldn't be expressing such strong views about it, so it doesn't really gel to suggest it would be fine if we changed official recognition of it to be on the same level as any other bit of paperwork.
But as far as official recognition goes, it is "just another bit of paperwork". It takes about the same length of time to fill out a marriage certificate as it does to fill out a birth certificate, and contains quite a lot of the same information.
From an "official" point of view, everything else - the vows, the fancy clothes, the big party and the emotional relatives - is window dressing. Whenever I have to demonstrate that my wife and I are married, they want to see the bit of paper. They don't care about exactly what we might have promised each other, and in what form. They don't care about whether we think marriage is a sacrament, or an administrative convenience. They just care that we have the bit of paper confirming that our marriage was duly registered.
The thing that is culturally special is the societal recognition, not the paperwork. If two people move to a new town, call themselves "Mr and Mrs Smith" and set up home together, they will have all the cultural capital of a married couple whether or not they actually have the paperwork. Increasingly, society is bestowing that same cultural capital on same-sex couples who say they are married - again, regardless of whether or not they have the paperwork.
[ 20. November 2015, 16:00: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
I think the incoherence in Steve's position arises from the fact that he is unsure which of those he'd rather appear to be.
What incoherence? I have a very coherent position which is that as far as the NT is concerned sex is for male with female and so Christians only do heterosexual marriage and don't do sex outside marriage.
I have a further coherent position that becoming a Christian is voluntary and I'm not supposed to coerce anybody either to be a Christian or to accept Christian moral practices. In particular I'm not supposed to make Christianity a state religion and use the power of the state to coerce people either by internal heresy-hunting a la the Inquisition, or by war a la Crusades/Jihad.
The appearance of 'incoherence' is partly because I'm trying to untangle the sad history in which a lot of well-meaning but misguided people ignored that 'further' point and did set up state religion forms of Christianity which did coerce people on issues like homosexuality, which has considerably confused the situation and brought a great deal of unnecessary heat to discussions. And also partly because I'm trying to quite seriously discuss the proposition of how do you do a 'plural' state, and to get you to realise that a fair 'plural' society will actually be a bit incoherent and won't quite give everybody everything they want, because a fair plural society has to allow people to disagree and to a significant extent to act on their disagreements.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Ooops! Sorry, my quote was from Eliab, not from orfeo.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
So why are you trying to make the state enforce your (arguably) Christian understanding?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What incoherence? I have a very coherent position which is that as far as the NT is concerned sex is for male with female and so Christians only do heterosexual marriage and don't do sex outside marriage.
I'm pretty sure Christians do have sex outside marriage, and that any of us could cite at least half a dozen examples from both media and personal experience. Or is this one of those "if they do that then they're not real Christians" kind of situations?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The appearance of 'incoherence' is partly because I'm trying to untangle the sad history in which a lot of well-meaning but misguided people ignored that 'further' point and did set up state religion forms of Christianity which did coerce people on issues like homosexuality, which has considerably confused the situation and brought a great deal of unnecessary heat to discussions. And also partly because I'm trying to quite seriously discuss the proposition of how do you do a 'plural' state, and to get you to realise that a fair 'plural' society will actually be a bit incoherent and won't quite give everybody everything they want, because a fair plural society has to allow people to disagree and to a significant extent to act on their disagreements.
Unless you're a same-sex couple who claims to be married. That's the kind of disagreement that shouldn't be allowed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Garasu;
quote:
So why are you trying to make the state enforce your (arguably) Christian understanding?
Where am I doing that? I'm discussing possibilities, legal theoreticals - possibly I may make the case so well, and so many other people will agree with me, that the state eventually will do what I suggest in terms of how it does/what terminology it uses for 'civil partnerships'; I'm not holding my breath....
If you're talking about my view of a 'plural society', it's not specifically Christian - it's pretty much the (small l) political liberalism I was raised on. Such a society can only come about by a wide agreement between people of many different beliefs/philosophies who are willing to compromise rather than go totalitarian for their own specific beliefs.
In real terms my Christian views are about the possibility of living in a state that just outright persecutes us; and I know I'm not meant to respond coercively or with violence to that, but follow the example of marytyrdom set by the early church before the 'Constantinian' error.
As regards 'gay issues' I'm again not trying to 'make' the state do things - but since we are in a nominally pluralist society, why can't I argue my case about those issues?? Assuming, that is, that the people on the gay side are willing to have serious discussion, and not just 'make' the state do what they want....
I'm currently intending - though it may take a while - to put something about my interpretation of said 'gay issues' on a DH thread for more moderate discussion than goes on here in Hell. I've a busy weekend, indeed week, coming up and I'll want to be careful so it may take a while.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
I'm pretty sure Christians do have sex outside marriage,
So am I!! Christians are human beings and still sinners. But I thought I'd made clear I was talking about my view, and its coherence, and I specifically used the phrase 'as far as the NT is concerned' - that is, this is a description of the Christian teaching, not how well individuals live up to it; which Christians know even better than you do, we often don't....
also by Croesos;
quote:
quote:
by SL:
a fair plural society has to allow people to disagree and to a significant extent to act on their disagreements.
Unless you're a same-sex couple who claims to be married. That's the kind of disagreement that shouldn't be allowed.
I note you refer back to an exchange between myself and Alan Cresswell. In that exchange I explored possibilities for potential different kinds of partnership in a pluralist state; you'll note that I also agreed with Alan that this probably wasn't going to happen, but my point might be useful as a discussion point. I'm making that kind of suggestion as a guy with a law degree and a considerable interest in legal theory even if that nice Mr Asperger did rather sabotage my intended legal career. My starting point was about the way society ran for so long on a basis of 'Christian marriage' at least for citizens of supposedly 'Christian' states, and wondering where things might have gone if we'd been considering a more rational 'blank slate' start not biased by that unfortunate history.
As far as I'm concerned I'm not greatly worried that there will be 'same-sex marriages' in law, and I've actually been telling fellow-Christians to stop aggravating the situation by thoughtless complaining. I would expect churches to recognise the legal rights created by such partnerships. Churches that take the NT seriously should not be doing SSM for their members (and therefore not for outsiders either).
(Note BTW that apparently there were cases of Anabaptists not getting married in the state churches which were the only legal marriages. and finding that that kind of disagreement wasn't allowed, and they got prosecuted for 'fornication' despite having made the same basic marital promises as in the state churches. I have a decidedly 'liberal' concern to avoid that kind of situation for everybody, rather than a down on gays over this)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'gay issues' I'm again not trying to 'make' the state do things - but since we are in a nominally pluralist society, why can't I argue my case about those issues?? Assuming, that is, that the people on the gay side are willing to have serious discussion, and not just 'make' the state do what they want....
When "what they want" is to not be discriminated against and harrassed and murdered, yes I think they are completely justified in trying to "make" the state do what they want. Why do you think they would be willing to have a "serious discussion" about having their rights curtailed? Who on earth would be able to have a dispassionate discussion about being made a second class citizen? You? Certainly not me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
What incoherence?
Two things, mainly.
First, I find it difficult to reconcile your enthusiasm non-theocratic, secular, liberal pluralism in the legal/political sphere (which certainly appears to be your deeply-held principles) with your almost pathological fear of ending up in court on hate-crime charges if we treat gay people equally. Your position on that is, to me, completely incoherent. I have literally no idea what you are so worried about. What is it that you want to do which is both consistent with your commitment to liberalism, and that anyone here would remotely associate with hate crime?
Second, there's the futile wish that the state would recognise only neutral 'partnerships' and not marriages. It's pretty obvious that it would never have occurred to you to object to the secular recognition of committed sexual relationships as 'marriages' until there was a real risk of relationships that you really don't approve of getting that recognition. Your commitment to the principle of equal legal rights ought to make you support equal legal marriage, but you can't bring yourself to do that, so to preserve a veneer of equality, you've discovered that you don't actually want legal marriage for anyone at all. It's as absurd, and incoherent, as a person with an ostensible commitment to racial equality who would rather abolish democracy altogether than extend the franchise to black people.
Your frequently stated principles ought to lead to you to unreservedly welcome marriage equality. Yet you don't. Your even more frequently stated views on the proper Christian attitude to the state ought to make the issue of state recognition of marriages your religion disapproves of absolute insignificance to you. Yet it isn't. You cannot coherently defend those principles once you have compromised them to make allowance for your homophobia.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos;
I'm pretty sure Christians do have sex outside marriage,
They need to have a lot more, if it'll keep them from sublimating their sexual desires and urges into violence, fighting and war.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards 'gay issues' I'm again not trying to 'make' the state do things - but since we are in a nominally pluralist society, why can't I argue my case about those issues??
And again, who do you think is stopping you?
You repeatedly talk about how you're being oppressed, coerced, and silenced - but you have singularly failed to produce even the slightest evidence of this. Why should anyone believe that you are arguing in good faith? quote:
Assuming, that is, that the people on the gay side are willing to have serious discussion, and not just 'make' the state do what they want....
Oh sure, when you argue your position you just want to have a serious discussion, but when they support same-sex marriage they're coercing you.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My starting point was about the way society ran for so long on a basis of 'Christian marriage' at least for citizens of supposedly 'Christian' states, and wondering where things might have gone if we'd been considering a more rational 'blank slate' start not biased by that unfortunate history.
This seems remarkably revisionist. Most Christian states, supposed or otherwise, have historically recognized the legality of the marriages of both non-Christians and non-citizens. The "unfortunate history" you claim to find so problematic didn't happen the way you seem to think it did.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Oh sure, when you argue your position you just want to have a serious discussion, but when they support same-sex marriage they're coercing you.
I sense an irregular verb here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm having some difficulty with this on the Ship at the moment because Hosts/Admin are restricting my ability to argue an anti-Constantinian position on various issues.
How dare they enforce the ship's Commandments?!
To the extent that he has only posted 21 times on this thread. That he hasn't been successful is another issue entirely.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
