The conclusion being ....
... that whilst the employee is a twerp, Trafford Housing Trust is managed by wankers.
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 …
Exactly. It's that classic quote (about defending to the death etc etc: whilst I don't agree with his opinions, I think he was bang on to sue his employer, who sound like they were clearly prejudiced against him simply because they disagreed with his opinion. And I'm glad he won the case.
Did you even read what he posted?
Roughly he said:
He disagreed with marriage in church for gays, but didn't go on to say a civil marriage was not...
I don't think gay people should get married in a Christian Church either,
I don't understand why they would WANT to get married in one,
if the religion is against it, why would you want to be a part of it?
> Did you even read what he posted?
That's exactly what this issue was all about.
The guy merely thought that there was a bizarre contradiction between gays wanting to get married in the hall of an organisation that is fundamentally against gay marriage.
He doesn't seem to have expressed a personal opinion about homosexuality at all in his posting.
I actually think the Church should get out of the marrying business altogether.
By all means let people have a show ceremony in a Church (or a Synagogue, or a Mosque, or a temple, or a forest clearing) if they really must, but it should not be in any way legally binding. The actual, official, wedding should take place in the town registry office.
This is how they already do it in some other countries, and it works there. It also would mean that no religion is elevated in status above any other (since some religious marriage ceremonies are not recognised by the law of the land).
Personally, I feel the opposite.
Governments should get out of the marrying business. Now if they would like to create a legal joining of two estates, that's different. That becomes a simple contractual matter, and one that has no bearing on the gender, race, religion, or creed of any of the participants.
"The actual, official, wedding should take place in the town registry office."
That is what happens in this country as well. It's just that for the C of E (i.e. the official church of our Monarch), the building is legally a sub-office of the town registry office.
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Jedi, etc, can have whatever ceremony they like (as can CofE adherents if their vicar is 'progressive') but they have to make an extra journey to the town hall registry.
Whatever the technicalities of the situation, it's not fair that some groups should be taken more seriously than others based on beliefs that can most charitably be described as "unprovable".
Why is a ceremony conducted by a Christian priest in a Church automatically considered "valid", but one conducted by a Pagan priestess at an ancient sacred site autimatically considered "not valid" ? It's not as though one set of beliefs is any more or less ridiculous than the other .....
That is what happens in this country as well. It's just that for the C of E (i.e. the official church of our Monarch), the building is legally a sub-office of the town registry office.
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Jedi, etc, can have whatever ceremony they like (as can CofE adherents if their vicar is 'progressive') but they have to make an extra journey to the town hall registry.
No. I can assure you that my own marriage is completely legit, and occurred once and only once, in the local Catholic church. A registrar needs to be present to observe (not officiate at) the ceremony to ensure it complies with the legal requirements. While in my case the registrar did indeed come from the local registry office many priests have completed a short course and a submitted the relevant forms to be registered as registrars in their own right - this is simply one of those things that varies from priest to priest.
CofE churches are not in any kind of legally privileged position in this respect. The rules are exactly the same, regardless of denomination.
> if the religion is against it, why would you want to be a part of it?
There are plenty of gay people / gay couples who go to church regularly and for whom their faith is very important. I suppose they just ignore the part about Christianity being against homosexuality in the same way that everyone ignores the part about slavery. All Christians of every denomination follow a 'version' of Christianity that suits them - by definition. People pick and choose the parts they want. And most Christians respect gay people - it's only homophobes who have a problem with gays and they are just using religion as a shield to hide behind.
Rather unfair to say he's a queer basher, based on the available evidence.
All he's done is say he doesn't agree with gay marriage in christian church, or at least of his particularly branch of christianity. Which is actually a wholly reasonable opinion. He hasn't actually said he has a problem with civil marriage of any type.
Church rules say same sex marriage isn't allowed, so it makes sense for them not to allow it. In the same way they won't let you steal, or worship the devil, or break any of their other rules.
Still the guy is a bit of an idiot in the sense that he's got himself enraged due to totally misunderstanding the governments position on gay marriage in church.
Government actually says "Churches can marry same sex couples if they want, it's not our business"
What this twerp hears this as "Churches must marry same sex couples if they ask to be married"
Oh and just before anyone decides to call me names of any kind I'll just go on record as saying, personally I couldn't give a crap what any 2 or more consenting sentient beings of any species or gender do together, as long as it doesn't effect me.
"Government actually says "Churches can marry same sex couples if they want, it's not our business"
The Government consultation on this issue wants to satisfy the major Churches by explicitly banning gay marriage in churches. Unfortunately this has the effect of denying liberal religious bodies like the Quakers the right to exercise their religious consciences.
The answer is to be like France. The only marriage ceremony that counts as legally binding is the civil one. Any religious ceremony is optional and done elsewhere afterwards. The State will still allow the Churches' dogma proscriptions when considering "equality" challenges. So divorcees could still not insist on a church ceremony - and gay people would be in the same position. Churches are already allowed immunity from some equality laws where it goes against their dogma. eg not appointing women or gay clergy.
> What this twerp hears this as "Churches must marry same sex couples if they ask to be married"
That is precisely the idea. Once "marriage" has been redefined, the issue is no longer about what the institution of marriage is - it becomes all about the people involved and ripe for attack on the basis of discrimination.
Remember when the police went into a christian cafe and then claimed that having scrolling religious texts on TV screen could be construed as offensive and tried to get the place shut down? If you dislike christian beliefs, why would you patronise their cafes and then complain, unless you wanted to cause a scene and get them shut down?
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...
I put married in quotes for a good reason.
Marriage is basically: everyone gets dressed up goes to a building where a few songs are sung, readings are made and someone says the equivalent of 'may the great spirit bless your union'.
Civil ceremony is basically: everyone gets dressed up goes to a building where someone says the equivalent of 'the local council says you're joined.'
Spot the difference.....
Why do a bunch of 'old blokes in frocks'. have the right to deny people the first option?
and change 'gay' for any other minority group and see what happens...........
The ceremonial part isn't the problem. Marriage is legally important too, and there lies the issue. It affects inheritence, child custody, taxation, shared finances and home ownership, insurance, benefits, immigration, medical proxy when incapacitated, a whole host of things like that. A civil union provides the legal benefits, but at the same time it's often percieved as the new 'seperate but equal' - an implicit insult.
I understand where JDX is going with that. Theres two issues, one is gay unions \ marriage and the other is gay weddings in churches that object to gay marriage.
Should a church have a right to refuse any couple the right to use their building? Sure, just make sure to remove their charity status along the way. It's their 'club' and their rules.
Should the church have a right to dictate if any 2 (or more) people want to form a union outside of a church? hell no. Should they have a right to dictate if it's called marriage? marriage certainly predates christianity so the catholic church cannot define what marriage means for non catholics. The problem lies in politicians bringing their religion to work.
"Oh, they own the courthouse then? Silly me, I thought the people owned that."
In England and Wales, the local registry office will officiate civil partnerships for same sex couples.
The churches own their buildings, have their own beliefs and their own rules.
"Why do a bunch of 'old blokes in frocks'. have the right to deny people the first option?"
[in the UK - or at least England & Wales]
Whilst equality laws apply to "public" clubs - they don't necessarily apply to others considered "private". On those rules the major Churches are not actually "private" - however for political convenience they are treated as such.
Therefore churches can legally discriminate against people holding certain offices or taking part in services. The existing discrimination on church marriage ceremonies is exercised primarily against divorcees and "barren" people - depending on the church denomination.
The current Government consultation was couched to satisfy the major Churches by explicitly banning gay marriage in churches. That is beyond the current legal exemption to ban divorcees - if they wish. The Quakers are upset as that total ban would deny them their religious conscience to perform gay marriages.
> Marriage is basically: everyone gets dressed up goes to a building where a few songs are sung, readings are made and someone says the equivalent of 'may the great spirit bless your union'.
Wrong. If you qualify it to "a man and a woman", that's a wedding, but not a marriage.
Very true. I don't understand the desire to marry in a church that doesn't accept gays? Sure in a church that does, fine, but (no disrespect intended) why would somebody want to endorse or the recognition of a body of people that believe your way of life is a sin? I think the church is wrong (actually I think they're absolutely mental) but I don't understand the desire to marry in a catholic church? Hell I was catholic and I didn't get married in one. Nuttier than squirrel shit and far more toxic. They won't change, leave them to their sad lives and make them pay tax.
If you work on the Sabbath, you shall be put to death (Exodus 35:2)
You can buy slaves from the nations that surround you, or even temporary residents of your own country (Leviticus 25:44-45)
You can beat your (male or female) slave with a rod without punishment, so long as they don'y die. (Exodus 21:20-21)
If you curse your mother or father, you will be put to death (Leviticus 20:9)
If you commit adultery, you will be put to death (Leviticus 20:10)
How come these things are conveniently forgotten by people saying that the bible says that 'homosexuality is wrong'?
The adultery part is sort-of-wrong. The biblical definition of adultery isn't the same as ours. Marriage at the time was much more about property and ownership of women - to people of that culture, 'adultery' refered only to a man having sex with a woman married or betrothed to another man, and was in essence a form of property crime. A very serious property crime. But it didn't work the other way around. No crime was permitted when a man, married or unmarried, had sex with an *unmarried* woman. See Samson for a clear example - a very holy and rightous character who still slept with a prostitute, and God had no problem with it at all. This is also the reasoning behind that law, strange to modern senses, that a woman shall marry her rapist. In our terms: 'You break it, you bought it.' A marriage with a rather generous bride price was to compensate the woman's father for devaluing his posession.
"You can buy slaves from the nations that surround you, or even temporary residents of your own country"
.. and then we're told that although slavery was allowed at the time, we should not forget that a slave is a man, and he should be protected in every way that was possible at the time against the injustice or cruelty of his master.
>>How come these things are conveniently forgotten by people saying that the bible says that 'homosexuality is wrong'?
There are 2 answers.
1)Those were specific laws to the Jews, which were outmoded under the new covenant thanks to Jesus... Levitical laws in particular are normally considered to fall into this category
2)It is correct that the bible does not say one type of sin is worse than another, so in away you're right... gay sex is not worse than thieving or adultery or lustful thoughts.
You should note though that the claim shouldn't be "homosexuality is wrong", but "acting on homosexuality is wrong"... in the same way that sex with someone you're not married to is not right, but sex itself is not bad or wrong in any way.
"How come these things are conveniently forgotten by people saying that the bible says that 'homosexuality is wrong'?"
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. Just like gays, lesbians, etc. enjoy the freedom to live/express their sexuality. Live and let live. Everyone should be able to get on with their own lives, believing what they like without be bullied into someone's idea of the correct way to think. The law should not be involved unless someone is harmed, threatened, libelled, slandered, etc.
I notice that nobody has been brave/daft enough to tell the Muslims which bits of the Koran they should ignore or suggest that they should consider gay marriages in mosques.
"I notice that nobody has been brave/daft enough to tell the Muslims which bits of the Koran they should ignore or suggest that they should consider gay marriages in mosques."
What's the position of the Sufi on this? They seem to be considered heretical and a mention of the Sufi poet Shah Hussain seems to stir things up.
Anyone can pull things out of context. Its a fun game.
However, there is a "settled principle" (much like "settled science") among Christians that homosexual activity is wrong, as is adultery and cursing your parents. Don't confuse the legal code given to a recently freed slave nation with "what we should do today."
It isn't that things are conveniently "forgotten" by christians, its that the record of details wasn't meant to be duplicated, it was meant to be learnt from. Remember that the laws were given to adults, so "cursing your parents" is not about a child saying "I hate you!" its about how adults treat their parents. No, you can't kill off or shun the "useless" pensioners and its worthwhile listening to those who have more experience. Respect all round.
Slavery was a last ditch attempt at survival in a world without social security and it doesn't really parallel the American abomination. There was no idea of slaves being "sub-human." You didn't go out and fight someone to get some slaves. Slaves got a day off every week, you couldn't kill them (as other nations generally could) and they were to be freed on a regular basis. Freed slaves had the option of returning to slavery if they wished.
To help prevent people getting to that stage there were further safeguards - land reverted to its original owners and debts were cancelled on a regular basis. If you were growing things in a field, you could only reap it once and anything you dropped or missed had to be left for the poor to pick up.
Adultery is about more than property rights. Breaking up families is bad for children, reveals an untrustworthiness in those concerned, and is mostly about putting myself and my interest above the interests of those around me. Selfishness is at the core of most evil and to risk your children and break solemn promises for some sexual experience is disgusting. I know that's not trendy, but there is a constant call to be self-controlled and to do the right thing from principle, not what you happen to feel like doing. That makes this better for everyone.
I've no idea why most Christians don't keep the Sabbath. It isn't just buried in the "ceremonial" law, its slap-bang in the middle of the 10 commandments. That would seem to make it one of the important ones.
I think if you want to get it done in a church and the church is ok with that then go ahead, if you want to do it at city hall (or the registrars office depending on your location) then that's fine too...
I got married in city hall by a judge, the license and certificate (of participation... this is America after all) says Certificate of Marriage. even though there was no word about god goddess heathens Celts pagans sheep or anything else. I understand there are religious issues, which is cool, Muslims do not do their prayers in Jewish synagogues and vice versa, if a church/religious establishment has an issue with homosexuals or protestants or Jews or Hindus or atheists then they do not have to perform the ceremony. However the rights bestowed on the partner, should be the same whether they are hetro or homo, that's all really, no one has patent on the word marriage, it is a generic term for a couple committing to each other for as long as they can stand each other. we can call it a "civil union" if you like I do not really care if you're wearing a ring had some sort of person who has the authority to register the union with the appropriate papers then I will say you are married.
however I think it would be cool to let bisexuals have a husband and a wife, as long as all three are in a monogamous relationship all together, after all twos company three is a sexy party!
Maybe we are trying too hard?
If you are religious you can get married.
If you aren't, you have a civil partnership.
If you are religious and gay, you have probably been disowned by your church anyway.
If not, then your church can marry you as its their rules. Don't like the rules? Don't go, they don't respect you.
The big issue here is that he laid out a reasoned and not offensively put opinion. Is he not entitled to that these days?
I personally disagree with him on his stance as I believe we are all equal, regardless of gender, race, colour, sexuality or any other "birth trait", but he has a point insofar as his cult is concerned.
If he believes in his invisible man upstairs and has an interpretation of it that means he thinks it's wrong for gay people should not marry, then he is surely entitled to that opinion, and surely entitled to express that opinion, so long as he isn't inciting hatred or violence, which it doesn't seem he did.
Jeez, just take the average grandparent and ask them their opinion of this type of thing!
It's... PC gone...wait for it...mad!
Recent polls show that there is little support right across the UK for gay marriage and redefining the definition of the traditional family, especially as we already have civil partnerships, even from gays themselves.
This just goes to show how out of control this totalitarian so-called "liberal" elite has become.
Recent figures suggest that in the UK a "traditional family" is now a single parent - either unmarried or divorced. Some of my very middle-class neighbours have very complicated family relationships - with several children from several marriages. In the 1950/60s that was a rare state.
PS. the El Reg spellchecker is using US dictionary spellings.
People are entitled to their own point of view and the freedom to express it, especially within the arena of public discourse or privately amongst friends. If we persecute them in this example, then we should expect to be persecuted for our own viewpoints.
So basically, stop being miserable cunts! :)
Anyone else of the opinion that it is in fact Ms Julia Slavordales conduct which is unacceptable, and has brought disrepute upon the organisation, not to mention substantial unnecessary costs upon the organisation, and the public cost of using the High Court?
"What's that Skippy?"
"She's been promoted for it?"
Par 72 and all that.
"Adrian remains employed by the Trust and I am pleased this matter has now concluded".
Has he been reinstated to his old position? has his pay cut been rescinded? I notice the trust is very quiet about this and as for the politically correct halfwit that started all this bollocks,what has become of her? Hopefully she is the new Paperclip and Toilet Roll Co-ordinating Officer for the housing trust.
Why don't the militants pursue marriage in Mosque or temple.
If its that important to them that they are seen as equals maybe they should push some of the religions that strictly forbid the acts rather than the ones that turn a blind eye and just say they won't bless it in their place of worship?
By the way I don't work for a housing trust, maybe I am allowed an opinion?
Oh I'm not Christian either.
"If its that important to them that they are seen as equals maybe they should push some of the religions that strictly forbid the acts rather than the ones that turn a blind eye and just say they won't bless it in their place of worship?"
[England & Wales]
The major Churches are not turning a blind eye. Some of their clergy might be in an unofficial way - but are getting disciplined for it.
The campaign of the major Churches' hierarchy is to prevent any gay marriage - either civil or religious. They made the same arguments against liberalising divorce. However while divorcees can now have a legal civil marriage - the Churches were given a legal exemption to be selective according to their chosen dogma.
In the current consultation the Churches have been offered a similar exemption on gay marriages. However this is more proscriptive than the divorce provisions - as it would enshrine a blanket ban on gay religious marriages. This has upset the liberal groups like the Quakers whose religious conscience is to perform gay marriages.
The public argument is really a debate about whether the dogma of the major Churches can override the liberal conscience of other religious groups - and override the civil law of the State for everyone.
when they went with the bizarre demotion and pay reduction scheme. If they'd dropped him a pay grade or two straight off it might have made more sense before the judge.
I'm guessing that either they didn't actually want to fire him because either 1) they needed him or 2) if they had fired him, he would have gone straight to a tribunal.
In the technical IT world people generally debate about facts - and weighing the pros and cons of the possible outcomes.
In the political world of opinion such debates are more like a marketing view - the outcome depending mainly on brand visibility and promotional money.
What's the definition of 'majority' here?
Recent yougov poll put 58% of people with faith pro same sex marriage, and in the general population 71%. Seems like quite clear majority are for it actually.
Oh, and in case you really don't get the 'what's wrong with civil partnership', ask your self this: what was wrong with making black Americans sit at the back of the bus and whites at the front. Everyone still got to where they were going so what's the issue?
My favoured solution? Strike all mention of "marriage" entirely from civil law, make it so that only civil unions have any legal weight. All existing marriages at the time of the change would automatically be converted into civil unions.
Then any church (or mosque, synagogue, temple, or bowling club for that matter) can marry whoever it likes, and can refuse to marry whoever it doesn't like, and that's purely a private matter between them and their members.
What I think is wrong is if he had been a Muslim then nothing would have been done about it.
Or if he had quoted the Pope saying that I believe this is wrong because the pope says so and I am a Catholic.
Things are not applied universally.
I think they should be able to have the same legal rights if they want that.
Don't think they should be able to marry in a Church though.
(Either that or they accept that the bible is not the word of God but the word of man.)
I am not religious but I think they should be consistent otherwise it is just total nonsense.
"Don't think they should be able to marry in a Church though."
There are several liberal groups across the religious spectrum who are keen to perform gay marriages in their places of worship. The most notable is the Quakers who have declared themselves in favour. They are dismayed that the current consultation paper proposes a blanket ban on any religious marriage ceremony for gays. They see this as the major Churches denying the Quakers their right to a religious conscience.
It should be remembered that the Quakers have been ahead of the major Churches on most UK equality issues. They were campaigning for the abolition of the slave trade when the CofE was still staunchly pro-slavery. William Wilberforce, a Christian MP, was eventually persuaded to present the Quaker's views in Parliament - as Quakers were barred by law from standing as MPs. Even after the anti-slavery bill was passed Wilberforce voted several times with the CofE establishment - against equal rights bills for women that the Quakers supported.
Marriage is to allow a man and a woman to be together legally under Divine Law.
Two members of same sex do not need to do this to spend time together.
A:Who is that woman you were with earlier?
B: My Wife
A: You married?
A: Where's your witnesses?
B: There's one, there's one.
A: Oh OK..
A: Who is that bloke you were with earlier
B: My good friend.
Which I find absolutely disgusting as according to the cretin of a manager ("I am glad this matter is settled") .. Um, NO .. its not chuffing settled. You are still in a job and clearly should not be in any position of authority outside a petting zoo.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019