EPTUK to legalise gay marriage, religious exemptions - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. | ||
pigscanfly
Singapore147 Posts
| ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 20 2012 21:49 pigscanfly wrote: Would you be satisfied if they changed the Church of England's ability to conduct legal weddings? i.e. Marriage as a religious ceremony, but that still requires a certificate of marriage from an external source in order for the marriage to be legal. Would you then be okay with them excluding homosexuals from these weddings? I'd be no more OK with it than if it was legal for a restaurant to deny service to black people. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination? | ||
KwarK
United States43246 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:40 sam!zdat wrote: Is it discrimination if I go into the doctor and ask for FtM sex change surgery, and they tell me no, sorry, only females can get that? What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination? Clearly you haven't read or understood the OP. No, it's not discrimination to be denied something that doesn't exist, that's pretty much the entire point to this topic. The church can currently refuse to perform them because they don't exist, if gay marriage is introduced then they won't legally be able to discriminate. That's what the topic is about, that's the point. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
| ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 21 2012 22:13 KwarK wrote: Clearly you haven't read or understood the OP. Nah, you just don't catch my point. No, it's not discrimination to be denied something that doesn't exist, that's pretty much the entire point to this topic. The church can currently refuse to perform them because they don't exist, if gay marriage is introduced then they won't legally be able to discriminate. That's what the topic is about, that's the point. Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist? edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture. edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:17 sam!zdat wrote: Nah, you just don't catch my point. Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist? edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture. edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy Gay marriage clearly exists. Believing that it doesn't is akin to believing that math doesn't exist. And you're more than welcome to believe that marriage exists only for procreation. If you do then you yourself would only get married when you wanted kids. You are, however, not allowed to tell other people that they may not get married. And, until you can tell us how homosexuality is different than being black and how a wedding service is different than service at a restaurant, it should be illegal to discriminate on those grounds. You are misunderstanding what it means for a belief to be personal. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:40 Klondikebar wrote: And you're more than welcome to believe that marriage exists only for procreation. But not welcome to belong to a church that believes that (unless under the even more terrible "opting out" scheme). edit: one should assume that all things are different from all other things until demonstrated otherwise. edit: I spilled quite a bit of ink a few pages ago explaining why it was different than a restaurant, although I know you don't want to listen. You prefer just to insist on the impossibility of the task. edit: please, please, let's not put gay marriage on the level of a priori concept (mathematics) that is an egregious error and surely you must know this edit: and when you legislate that the church must marry you, will you also legislate against them hating your guts for it? edit: and don't disguise the issue. It's not "telling gay people they can't get married" it's "telling gay people they can't get married in this church, because it is contradictory to our theological conviction" edit: is it discrimination if you can't get your way EVERYWHERE? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43246 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:17 sam!zdat wrote: Nah, you just don't catch my point. Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist? edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture. edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy Nope, you can believe whatever you like. What you can't do is do whatever you like. You can believe that you should sacrifice kids to the sun god but what you can't do is murder some kids. You can believe that Britain should be a purely Anglo-Saxon nation but you can't refuse access to your club to black people because they're black. If this law passes you'll still be able to believe that a marriage between two men isn't a real marriage but you won't be able to refuse them one. The idea that limiting what you can do is new is absurd., Every law ever has limited what you can do. This is no different. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43246 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:42 sam!zdat wrote: edit: is it discrimination if you can't get your way EVERYWHERE? When getting your way is used to mean "being treated like a normal human being" then yes, it is discrimination. This isn't especially complicated. Is it really discrimination if you only have to sit at the back of some of the buses? | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On December 21 2012 22:47 stormtemplar wrote: Umm except there is. The Episcopal church in the USA blesses homosexual unions, and I think there are homosexual priests. That's awesome and they'll be able to marry homosexual couples in the UK then but what I wanted to say was not so much about something all common christian churches share but that many churches right now (like Catholics or Muslims etc.) do not have a rite to marry gay couples. They are quite explicit about the gender roles in their rites (for example women cannot become priests in a lot of churches etc.). | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 22 2012 03:44 silynxer wrote: That's awesome and they'll be able to marry homosexual couples in the UK then but what I wanted to say was not so much about something all common christian churches share but that many churches right now (like Catholics or Muslims etc.) do not have a rite to marry gay couples. They are quite explicit about the gender roles in their rites (for example women cannot become priests in a lot of churches etc.). Yes they do...it's called a marriage ceremony. I'm pretty sure it would be trivial to change "bride" to "groom" or vice-versa. I just got back from a wedding actually. There's nothing inherently gendered about the ceremony except maybe one or two lines in the vows. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
[EDIT]: You want to establish what any marriage rite ever is about, that's quite invasive. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 22 2012 04:08 silynxer wrote: Uhm, the whole believe system around what a specific marriage rite is about is heavily gendered in a lot of churches, for example it can be centered around procreation and the subsequent foundation of a family (note that it's not about the ability to adopt). That may be bigoted but that's not the point. So no they cannot just change some words to adjust the rite. You weren't talking about belief. You said that churches didn't a rite. But "gay" marriage isn't any different than any other marriage. It's just marriage. If all you want is a script for it (and a rite is really just a script), that already exists. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On December 22 2012 04:11 Klondikebar wrote: You weren't talking about belief. You said that churches didn't a rite. But "gay" marriage isn't any different than any other marriage. It's just marriage. If all you want is a script for it (and a rite is really just a script), that already exists. Lol? How does a church separate rites from believes? I'm a bit dumbfounded how you could suggest such a thing. Well, perhaps that happens if you see marriage just as an transaction and deny any spirituality to be of importance. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 22 2012 04:15 silynxer wrote: Lol? How does a church separate rites from believes? I'm a bit dumbfounded how you could suggest such a thing. Well, perhaps that happens if you see marriage just as an transaction and deny any spirituality to be of importance. I...wait...this...confused. You really can't differentiate between a belief and the ritualistic expression of said belief? | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
| ||
|
WarpTV
205 Posts
There is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible) There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: + Show Spoiler + 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6  -10)4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10) Old Testament The first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler + The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone. The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22) If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain. New Testament Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler + What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27) Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and Questions As with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousness Ironically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 22 2012 04:20 Klondikebar wrote: I...wait...this...confused. You really can't differentiate between a belief and the ritualistic expression of said belief? of course not... On December 22 2012 02:22 KwarK wrote: When getting your way is used to mean "being treated like a normal human being" then yes, it is discrimination. This isn't especially complicated. Is it really discrimination if you only have to sit at the back of some of the buses? I think part of being treated like a normal human being is having freedom of religion. Anyway, my point is just that going about this with legal means is a category error and a stupid strategic mistake on the part of gay people. But this ideology of foolish formal 'equality' is pretty deeply entrenched and maybe no more blows against it will be struck here. edit: look, the only way someone can countenance this law is by thinking that religion is stupid and that all religious people are stupid. I know that you guys think this, and I know that you feel very self-righteous in this belief. So you should stop pretending and just demand that we outlaw religion. My comrades the bolsheviks would be proud. On December 22 2012 02:20 KwarK wrote: If this law passes you'll still be able to believe that a marriage between two men isn't a real marriage but you won't be able to refuse them one. So where do I gain the ability to object to the demands of secular authority and refuse to participate in something I disagree with? Does that ever apply? If so, when, and under what circumstances? You think that you are promoting a just cause, and you are, but you have not fully considered the philosophical implications of the way you want to go about pursuing it. edit: if the state wants to impose this view on the Church of England, on the other hand, that would in my view be totally acceptable, since it's the state's church in the first place. | ||
| ||
