"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]

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.