Boss wrong to demote man over anti-gay-marriage Facebook post A Christian man who expressed his unfavourable views about gay marriage on Facebook - and was subsequently demoted with a 40 per cent pay cut by the Manchester-based housing trust he worked for - has won a breach-of-contract case against his employer. Mr Justice Briggs ruled in London's High Court this morning that the actions …
Ok, disclosure: I'm a Christian and I'm bisexual.
I agree with his point about non-Christians wanting to marry in Church - Why would you want to get married and make vows in the sight of someone you don't believe in?
I disagree with his opinions about the bible being clear on the subject - it's hazy at best, there are many other things which it is clear on that are ignored by the sort of people who bang on about homosexuality and same sex marriage. Sloth, gluttony, worshiping false idols (money), wearing clothes of mixed fabric, drinking blood, eating shellfish, etc. etc. Some of these things are to be taken seriously in a modern world, some are no longer needed. I would suggest that a desert living nomadic tribe, probably should eat shellfish or pork, it won't end well.
There are two issues with same sex civil partnerships - The first is that it's not marriage, it is something different and is it demeaning to say to people you want to be equal to you that you can have a sort of proto marriage, it's a bit like marriage, but not quite. The second is that you can't do it in a Church, which is because of the first - it's not marriage, therefore you can't do it in a Church. There are plenty of Churches that want to, many will bless a same-sex union, but they aren't allowed to marry.
All that said, I never thought in the 80s that we would be in a position within 30 years where there was even any form of same-sex civil partnership, so things are moving along.
If people who have opinions like his had been silenced all along the way, I can't imagine that we'd be in a particularly better place, stifling this sort of thing just results in embittered entrenched opinions, debating with them can result in change for the better.
I agree with your comments around "The first is that it's not marriage" but I fail to see how anyone who has read the Bible can say that it is "hazy" about saying that same sex sec is wrong.
You can argue that you feel it is no longer relevant or you could argue that the Bible is a guide or set of principals but I really fail to see how you can argue that it is "hazy".
I think a lot of the problem is in the name "marriage" or in the fight around that name. I also believe that a lot of people involved in that fight have their own agendas other than the question of equality or legal status.
Is this about getting/denying the equal rights or is it about sticking it to the "other side"? I have a suspicion that a lot of activism on both sides is driven by the latter.
Why not create a concept which would give *exactly* the same set of rights and obligations as marriage but under a different name?
Even I, and I don't consider myself homophobic in any way, don't like the idea of using "marriage" to describe a homosexual partnership. It just creates confusion: "Are you married?", "Yes", "Oh, we hope your wife will join us for dinner, then?", "Actually, he is my husband...". This is just unnecessary.
"Even I, and I don't consider myself homophobic in any way, don't like the idea of using "marriage" to describe a homosexual partnership. It just creates confusion: "Are you married?", "Yes", "Oh, we hope your wife will join us for dinner, then?", "Actually, he is my husband..."."
Heterosexual couples who have been together for years, but are not married, will often refer to their other half as their "partner". I've even had the response "my sister" - quite literally a non-incestuous sibling partnership.
I am amused when people get into a tizz of confusion because they can't work out from my name whether I'm male or female. The question is - "does it matter?". It doesn't bother me - unless people intend to apply discrimination in some form.
"Are you married?", "Yes", "Oh, we hope your wife will join us for dinner, then?", "Actually, he is my husband...". This is just unnecessary.
Wait, are you saying you're not interested in inviting his husband?! :p
To be honest, unless you are hosting some Victorian era dinner (where it's crucial that we not be seated next to our own sex! What a faux pas!) then I still don't see how it would matter.
Variants of your dinner anecdote could apply to race, gender, other cultures as well. It's a by-product of assumed social contexts.
It's something that happens at most once, and is part of knowing and understanding the different kinds of people around you.
Like I don't know, when you probably have to correct people when they pronounce your name.
<sarcasm> How unnecessary, change your name? </sarcasm>
I've read the bible and while it seems on a superficial level to be anti-gay, a deeper study makes this seem less clear-cut. Nowhere does it seem to be pro-gay but it can be argued it doesn't tackle the issue - it can further be argued that the very notion of sexuality as we understand it now simply didn't exist back then.
I've recently watched a 1-hour in depth lecture on this and 'hazy' is a reasonable description of how he made it appear.
As an agnostic (heavily leaning towards the atheistic side) who got married in church; the decision was largely an aesthetic one. The acoustics are great, the photos are awesome and there is a sense of ceremony that you just don't get in a registry office. The "in the sight of god" stuff both myself and my wife took with a large pinch of salt...it was more a case of "in the sight of friends and relations; many of whom are religious". Registry offices are a bit scabby in comparison. We hired a Rolls-Royce to get there in...an Austin Allegro would have done exactly the same job, if you will permit the comparison.
Marriage is done for lots of reasons...the tax breaks, protection of children and a long-term commitment to a partner. Religion isn't necessarily a part of the equation for some people (me included); but religion has called 'dibs' on the ceremony; have been doing it a long time (so it's traditional and 'done properly' if it's in a church); and do the job quite well. The setting is fantastic and those members of the audience who are religious go away happy.
Okay then, if you think it's not "hazy", tell me where it's clear. If you're talking about Leviticus 18:22 then that only refers to male homosexuality, and there's a strong argument that it only refers to the act of penile anal penetration. So lesbians are okay then? Good. And yes, even this is "no longer relevant"- do you eat shellfish? And what do you do if you find that the Lord has sent mildew on your house? Hmm? Even if you can pick-and-choose from the books of the Bible, surely you can't pick and choose from very close passages within Leviticus? If you do, then you might as well have made the whole thing up yourself. All other references are very hazy, and the subject of intense debate.
"but I fail to see how anyone who has read the Bible can say that it is "hazy" about saying that same sex sec is wrong."
As it happens, the Bible as understood by those who take Jesus' direct teachings as the highest authority on the matter isn't entirely clear cut. On the issue of whether it was OK to apply the Old Testament punishment of stoning to death for the woman caught in the act of adultery (notice that it wasn't the man who was arrested, and the context of this teaching tells us her apprehension was very likely a set up job), Jesus said that "whoever was without guilt should throw the first stone" and nobody dared to do so in His presence. Then Jesus said he wouldn't judge her. Jesus taught against child abuse by saying that the person who did this would be better off drowned with a millstone around their neck.
We don't have anything in the Gospels directly about Jesus teaching about homosexuality between adults. We do have St Paul's teachings later on in the New Testament, which were partly to do with the very sexually liberal Corinthian church then getting a bad name within the wider community which didn't understand the reasons for the new-found freedom of early Church life. So the highest authority within the Christian faith, i.e. the teachings of Jesus, is silent on the particular matter of adult consensual homosexuality, but we can imply his teaching to "not judge lest we be judged" to apply to the general case, and Paul's teachings are considered authoritative enough to create a distinction between private and public practice.
Plenty of (straight) non-believers get married in church. I don't believe in god, but I find that to be grotesquely disrespectful, but the ministers involved seem to be satisfied by the couples involved simply attending a couple of sunday services.
Unlike the dingbat in the story, I wouldn't draw the conclusion that gay = non-believer, so it really shouldn't be that hard to understand why a same-sex couple might want their union blessed in their place of worship.
Very well put. I'm straight and ex catholic. If I had the chance for a civil union with my wife I would have done that instead of getting married. Personally I associate marriage with religion, or at least the word rather than the concept. I don't think anybody should be excluded from the right to commit their life to someone, to get the benefits of a union, based on the sex of their chosen partner. Should it be called marriage? I'm with the posted above, personally I'm not sure why you would want to call it marriage given the association with a bunch of biggoted zealots, but my own decision would simply come down to, was the term or concept of a union first proposed by a religion (and if so which, I'm reasonably sure it predates christianity at least). If not then a state has no place imposing a religous definition on a civil concept. As to being married in a church, if the religion says no, then let them be biggotted fools, and remove the charitable status. You can't change people like that, forcing them to do something like that will make them hate more, just leave them to their own sad little lives.
"...was the term or concept of a union first proposed by a religion (and if so which, I'm reasonably sure it predates christianity at least)."
The concept of marriage goes back to the written history of the ancient Romans and Greeks - so must be presumed to date to before that. That is long before Christianity.
In medieval times marriage in the West was a legal contract cementing bonds between the elite of allied tribes and guaranteeing the line of succession. The common herd just got hitched without formal contracts or religious observance. It's only comparatively recently that the Churches had been given control of that civil legal marriage.
That was the time when the religious proscriptions about marriage were equally enshrined in civil law. When divorce and remarriage became legal in civil terms - the Churches were granted special exemption to still apply their dogma for church ceremonies.
One problem with the current situation is that the major Churches keep muddying the water about being "forced" to hold gay marriages. They are not forced to remarry divorcees or people who can't have children - that is already their legal dogma exemption. On the other hand the Quakers would welcome a change in the law to allow them to follow their religious conscience in holding gay marriages.
Actually the bible is fairly clear on what constitutes marriage:
Man + Woman (Genesis 2:24)
Man + Woman + Concubines (Abraham, Gideon, Solomon, etc)
Man + Woman + Woman + Woman (Esau, Jacob, Gideon, Solomon, etc)
Man + Brother's Widow (Genesis 38:6-10)
Rapist + Victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Male Slave + Female Slave (Owner decided who was to marry who. Exodus 21:4)
"Ok, so maybe the female-female-female thing would be interesting to watch...you may have a point.."
Actually after a few weeks it starts to get boring, you start to favour the more exciting sexual partner from the three (and that is not necessarily the prettiest/skinniest/blondest/biggest titted,) and then they start bitching at each other all the time, and then you can't be arsed with having three wives.
Trust me, it is not worth it. If you must do it, pay for it at the time, it works out cheaper in the long run.
There's a cultural and historical context often missed when quoting bible texts verbatim.
2000+ years ago in most of the world (and still in many countries today) marriage and sex were seen much of the time as business contracts, displays of power (over opposing people groups) and basic survival (breeding, financial). It wasn't seen as the ultimate destination of warm and fuzzy romance. If you're born into a world where you're basically wandering around the desert, there's a logic that you do what you can to get a woman and you don't take chances or no for an answer. On the flip side, a woman who gets a man gets financial benefits and if it's a plural marriage then she doesn't have to service her master every night and she gets some female friends.
On the subject of marriage, and religious rules about marriage, as with food like cloven-footed non cud-chewing animals, it made sense to commit to one partner for life because of the risk of STDs. Now they didn't know what we know now, so whether you believe it was God, magic, aliens or an extremely smart bunch of people, there was good reason to follow those rules if you wanted to ensure your survival and the survival of your seed.
Rape was seen as bad, but not a huge misdemeanour, in fact they were more concerned that the woman was spoiled and no other man would approach her, so it was part of the restitution that the rapist should marry their victim so as to financially support them. Interestingly there's at least one incident of rape in the bible where the rapist agrees to do so, but the brothers of the victim insist the rapist and be circumsised. When he agrees they then attack him while he's recovering and can't fight back. They had a sense of right and wrong back then, it just doesn't filter so well through our modern feel-good society.
Women were treated as propery in some ways, but they were considered valuable property, not unlike modern day employers taking insurance out on their workers, which some people also consider immoral. Why were women treated this way? Well I can say the reason it was acceptable for a man to have multiple wives but not a wife would have been partly biological - about 9 months. They didn't have clinical methods for abortion and they didn't have the pill.
Which brings us to slavery. The laws of Moses were actually fairly radical for their time. Apart from POWs, slavery was more of a contact of employment, or to pay back some debt, but even then after 7 years its jubilee... No not rolling out an old woman on a throne to watch Paul McCartney sing... Freedom, freedom from debt. There were some bad slave owners (like bad managers) but there were also good ones, that's why one of the rules says if you want to stay with your slave owner after your contact is done (remember it's about survival in a harsh world) then he can pierce your ear and call you his.
So why the rule about beating your slave but not to death? Again, you read that wrong, it's not a permission, it's a limitation. If the rules were too strict and they outright banned it, that would bring the law into disrepute because no-one would obey it. So they said you must not beat your slave to death, no matter what they've done.
What does that say about homosexuality and sin today? well its interesting, one to think over whilst eating your breakfast bacon.
How many rapists would want to be stuck with their victim for life, forced to support her and her children?
Pre-DNA testing, how do you stop a woman crying "rape" to deflect blame for indiscretions?
Its a rather practical solution to a horrible situation.
There were no jails - any other solutions, on the back of a postcard please.
>No, it WAS permitted early on in the bible, and was then forbidden.
? I think 'forbidden' is a bit strong? From memory, leaders of the church may only have one wife, but it's not an absolute requirement for other membors. Correct me if I'm wrong.
BTW, in AUS, Weddings are only for certification. Marriages are recognised by the government regardless of certification, for Gay and Straight couples. And my (puritan) religious tradition is the same. Which makes the whole argument about weddings uninteligable to me.
It was never permitted, merely not always condemned explicitly.
It always brought tragedy because and was obviously not according to the original pattern in genesis - one man, one woman.
Abraham + Sarah/Hagar; Jacob+leah/rachel, David, Soloman all failed form zip issues.
Most of the bible is about human failure. A lot of it is supposed to be obvious to the reader, but that fails if you just read little bits and pull them out of context.
Exactly. People love who they love. If nobodies getting hurt I personally I don't care if it's and man and a woman or the cast of Wicked and a cow. Theres nothing more natural and instinctive than love, we need to move on from old social constructs.
I like the comment above about hiding behind terminology, so very true.
'On a somewhat related matter -- I never understood why polygamy isn't allowed. Surely, if it's consenting adults...'
Marriage is a three-way legal contract between the people forming a partnership - and the society in which they live. The people agree to certain T&Cs - and the State chips in with various laws for status, protection, and material benefits.
Basically society wants stability and wealth generation. How the State enforces relationships is variable. In Victorian times a woman and her children were the property of the husband. In modern times the UK State has recognised that stability comes with people being reasonably happy.
The State's main interest is in wealth creation for the good of the State. So no one is going to be prosecuted for having one or several partners without a civil marriage - as long as they don't contravene any laws on incest or ages of consent. However formal bigamy is still illegal as it fraudulently abuses the State's material provisions for married couples.
I would venture to guess its how it been applied in the past. While it's logical to understand consenting adults making this decision. It more likely to be influence by a religion, and pounded into the head of impressionable children. While I can accept multi consenting adults loving each other, I hardly find teaching children (Particularly young girls) that this is the way it should be, vs a perfect acceptable way of living.
...a victim of self-regarding civil servants or charity colleagues who have decided for me how outrageous an anti-gay opinion made in my (gay) presence is. The remarks made by this chap seem not filled with hatred or violence. Obviously I don't agree with him, but he has every right to say this, in his private life in a social setting, online or not. I would be appalled if a colleague were punished so monstrously for such mild remarks in my own organisation. Come on, guys: get some perspective.
Good to know they exist
Not being a God-botherer in any shape or form, I disapprove of the guy's disapproval of homosexual marriage, but he's entitled to his opinion and his employers are bang out of order. Hopefully that's a nice bit of case law on the books to dampen down similar employer abuses in the future.
Look, I don't agree with this guy's opinion, and I do agree with the judge's decision that he should not have been disciplined for it, but is this not the same court system that just found two separate people in the last week or so guilty of various crimes because of posts on Facebook? Where was the "people on facebook can choose whether to read it or not" defense for them?
Is it that those two posted opinions that currently disagree with the government's views, and this one agreed?
This is becoming a scary trend...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
