"Conservatives"

[fpb]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-mp-urges-government-to-force-churches-into-same-sex-unions?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4aa5467bd0-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines09_08_2011&utm_medium=email

What is breathtaking is that no British news medium seems to have given this any attention.

Comments

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Of course. But that villainous Tory whose abominable letter started this simply wants to force Christian churches to carry out homosexual marriage in church. I am very happy indeed to confront other religions (including atheism) on an equal ground; I feel certain that if that were allowed, then both gay marriage and the religious bodies that endorse it would remain, as they are, a small and strange minority. But even if they didn't, that would not affect my view of reality.

The only problem with limiting marriage to religious bodies is that in the modern world there are quite a few people who do not claim any sort of religious belonging. A way should be sought to allow these people to marry as and how they will. But other than that, the further the State's snout is kept from God's business, the better for everyone.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

The only problem with limiting marriage to religious bodies is that in the modern world there are quite a few people who do not claim any sort of religious belonging. A way should be sought to allow these people to marry as and how they will.

Call it Civil Union. *shrug* There's no such thing as gay marriage in this country, so it would merely be following the same path.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Sorry to have to invoke ethnic cliches, but that is a typical piece of English humbug. There is nothing that the law actually calls gay marriage in this country, but the press keeps talking of Elton John's marriage. And if civil unions are not gay marriage, why are they limited to two people, and why is there a prohibition on close relatives marrying?

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

The only problem with limiting marriage to religious bodies is that in the modern world there are quite a few people who do not claim any sort of religious belonging. A way should be sought to allow these people to marry as and how they will.


I quote this back to you again. The way to sort this out is to have "legal partnerships/civil unions" which would not in law be called marriage but in practice would work in the same way; and leave the official word 'marriage' to the religions.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And I remind you that that is not what our Tory friend was proposing. What he was proposing is that the Churches should be forbidden from holding marriage ceremonies, until and unless they swallowed "gay marriage"; the implication being that the first church who dared hold anything like one after our Tory friend's proposals have been accepted would see the police march in and arrest the priest at the altar. And if you think I am exaggerating, that is simply what the State has always done when challenged.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

Churches should be forbidden from holding marriage ceremonies

Um... unofficial 'marriage blessings' would not be covered by this law, however.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Please tell me that you haven't really written that. You imagine for a minute that it would be tolerable for any church to be forbidden from performing a sacrament, let alone replace it with "informal blessings"??

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

No, they would be able to perform a non-legal sacrament. As we have already both agreed that State legality and religious ceremonies should be separate, it is surely irrelevant whether the government acknowledges or does not acknowledge the State legal status of a religious service.

If the government said that the taking of communion did not have legal statue - which it doesn't [there's no suggestion that in law the consumption of the blood and body of Christ gives specific legal benefits] it does not make communion itself any less valid. It just does not give it legal status. I am arguing that the same should be true for marriage.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That is nonsense. If I perform a non-legal sacrament I go to jail, just as I would if I granted non-legal driving licences or sold non-legal drugs. That is what non-legal means. And if you think that the State would ignore that, you are assuming that the State would behave as no State in history, unless profoundly corrupt and practically helpless, ever has.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

In that case, why is "A Muslim can have more than one wife in practice, just not in law" a valid point?

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Because, as you ought to know, in the case of Muslims the State is indeed corrupt, helpless and near collapse. If you mess with Muslims they will riot and bomb you, so we all smile very nicely at them and make long and stupid TV programs telling each other what very nice people Muslims are and what wonderful contributions they have made to our country. But since Christians don't put bombs, don't riot, and don't murder politicians (the IRA is a Marxist and anti-clerical organization, and its leaders are agnostics), nobody will bother being nice to them.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That is not an answer but an insult. If you don't accept that what I am saying is a fact, please show where it is not; and if you are charging me with racism, which is a commonplace reaction to this kind of statement, I don't see why you should bother remaining here. The notion that I don't deserve rational opposition is quite outrageous, and I suggest you come down from your wholly unwarranted superiority complex.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

You are right and I apologise.

I was not intending to accuse you of racism, or indeed of anything-ism. On the other hand, I also do not intend to continue discussing anything with you because I feel as if it is a waste of my time (which is not valuable, I acknowledge, but is nonetheless precious to me). On the several occasions, however, when I have asked you to provide evidence for what you have said (without, incidentally, suggesting you are wrong), you have ignored me.

Trust me, I have nothing in the slightest resembling a superiority complex - I wish very much that I did! I am, almost certainly, ridiculously commonplace - at my very best!

I wish you nothing but the best, but as you feel that I should not "bother remaining here", I am capable of taking a hint :) Much love and good will to you always.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am not English and I do not speak by way of hints and suggestions. When I said that I did not understand why you should wish to debate with someone you described as unworthy of rational debate, I meant exactly that. Personally I don't visit racist or Jew-bashing sites or blogs, save for exceptional instances; and if you had a reason to treat me as one, I would not expect you to wish to keep any contact. It was not a hint, it was a statement. I accept your apologies and hope the matter is closed.

I repeat my question: what kind of evidence would you accept that a "yuck" reaction in certain matters is instinctive to most people? "Evidence" on such a point can only mean polling seven billion people. On other issues I quoted plenty of evidence, not always, alas, on the side that suited you.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would also remind you that these so-called civil unions are barred to close kin and to third parties, which make them, not just imitations of marriages, but imitation of traditional English marriages. If they were merely the neutral way of registering religious weddings as you claim, they would have space for polygamous and incestuous weddings.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

not just imitations of marriages, but imitation of traditional English marriages.

See, I disagree here, because at the moment churches are FORBIDDEN BY LAW legally to perform same-sex partnerships. It's not that churches are currently not forced to accept and perform same-sex marriages, it is that they are not ALLOWED LEGALLY to do so.

If civil partnerships were literally 'marriage without calling it that', then the same rights should be open to homosexual couples as there is to heterosexual couples - which there isn't. (There are churches which accept and welcome GBLT couples, but are not allowed to perform their union: they have, at present, to perform a non-legal 'blessing' afterwards.)

If they were merely the neutral way of registering religious weddings as you claim, they would have space for polygamous and incestuous weddings.

There are laws against incest and against underage sex. According (as far as I know - and I am perfectly prepared to be corrected: I've read the entire bible, but not for MANY MANY years) to biblical rules, there is no 'lower age' of marriage and there's a fair amount of incest; however, even in a church it is not allowable to marry a 15 year old to someone, nor is incest legal, no matter the religious acceptance of that process.

As to polygamy; the legal problem with that is that benefits given to two people then become given to three or more, which causes legal issues on the original areas of State intervention into marriage - property and money. Therefore, that should be MORE acceptable within religions (for example, Muslims should be able to have their second wives 'blessed' by Islam) than outside it.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I thought I had made my meaning clear, but evidently I hadn't, or else you would not have wasted all these paragraphs on red herrings. Let's see if I can be clearer now.

"Civil partnerships" as they exist in English law are nothing to do with validating any religious ceremony. They are State-owned imitations of traditional English wedding mores for the use of homosexual couples. That is a fact and I can't imagine how you can fail to see it.

As for using the literal reading of isolated Bible passages to justify this or that sin, Christians, and certainly Catholics, are not bound by the Old Testament. It is not sacred to us in that sense. For that matter, not even the Jews are - try to argue with a rabbi that the example of Judah and Levi validates mass murder, see where it gets you.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

"Civil partnerships" as they exist in English law are nothing to do with validating any religious ceremony. They are State-owned imitations of traditional English wedding mores for the use of homosexual couples. That is a fact and I can't imagine how you can fail to see it.

They are not validating religious ceremonies, no. But as you say, in the modern world there are quite a few people who do not claim any sort of religious belonging. A way should be sought to allow these people to marry. I am suggesting that the legal status should work for people who do not claim any sort of religious belonging, but wish to be married.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

But that is not what they are for! Try to go to your local registrar with a member of the opposite sex; tell them - I belong to no religious group, so I want a civil partnership. They would tell you: you can't have a civil partnership, that is not what it's for. You can have a civil marriage, which is not the same thing. And if you insisted on the civil partnership, they'd have you thrown out as a weirdo and a troublemaker. So the civil partnership simply does not do what you claim it should do. It does do what I claim it does.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

But that's the point. I'm not saying it DOES what I claim it should do. I'm saying it SHOULD do what I claim it should do - and that 'marriage' in a church/synagogue/other religious place should be a non-legal (non-legal is different from 'illegal', incidentally: I have a non-legal humanist wedding to my name, and whilst the law does not acknowledge it, it can't imprison me for it because I did not break the law) event.

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And because you in your niceness claim that it ought to do so and so, we should treat the reality of what the British state has actually done, here and now, as if it did not exist? Sorry, I am a rationalist and I deal with things as they are.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

The British state has not done anything. It has suggested something which you can critique. You critique it saying "this is outrageous and should not happen". I critique it saying "If you're arguing this, then the logical outcome should be x".

Re: continued...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My dear young lady, perhaps you are not familiar with the way the British Ruling Class does things. In that case, may I inform you that this man's villainous suggestion follows a pattern. If you don't know the pattern, study the history of Britain in the last hundred years or so.

Re: continued...

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

My dear old man, I am aware. But your argument that the state has already DONE something is inaccurate.