Homophobic Cow Wins Case - Page 8

Ophiel · #**141** 07-18-2008, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by l'avatar

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." [Jude 1:7]

Nothing about homosexuality there per se though. Fornication refers to sex for pleasure - any sex for pleasure - or at least sex out of lust rather than love. The more rigorous interpretation of these things as any reproductive sex didn't come til much later, but either way, Sodom and Gomorrah is just as damning of heteros as homos really.

Ophiel · #**142** 07-18-2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshMcAuliffe

he would've done... and he didnt so... Christians go against the teachings of their own Lord... Christianity is built around the 4 gospels of Jesus so if Jesus didnt say anything of it then there should be no problem.

They say without saying it that, if he'd said something about it, it would've been x y z. Which is pretty fucking wrong if you think about it; what they're basically saying is that, if the Bible doesn't say anything about something, you're free to just guess what it might have said, based on how you think God thinks. Last I checked, the Church was pretty clear on God's will being ineffable, but regardless, it's pretty indefensible to decide that you know what Jesus would have said about something, and there's no reason why I shouldn't say that he obviously would have said something else. It's not like God never revised his teachings (Old and New Testament, anyone?), so surely if the Bible was due an update, we could rely on him to give us one, rather than letting anyone who feels like it make up a new one.

l'avatar · #**143** 07-18-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diablo_

jesus would be so annoying IRL. BLOCKED ª_ª

but my point was that he said absolutely nothing about homosexuality, much less condemning it. if it was really such a huge issue, wouldn't he have at least expressed an opinion on it?

i got your point, poof. don't ever raise your voice at me again. don't make me come down there.

it's assumed that all the rules & rituals that Jesus did speak out about are still revered. true, most of christianity is centered around what Jesus taught, but everything that stood before still stands. the only thing that really changed was the whole veil tearing/harrowing of hell thing. christianity is supposed to be the ~continuation~ to judaism, not an entire new religion, just as is islam is to the both of them. so just cause he didn't saaaAAaAAaAAAayyy it, doesn't mean it was free roam.

& besides, homosexuality still crosses a lot more lines than just flat-out being a big ole gay.

but then again, Jesus was down with the Greeks, & we all know how big of nellys they were.

& to stretch the eunuch verse from Mark as Jesus loving the gays is as ridiculous as the fools who stretch the story of Elijah's chariot into heaven as a UFO. but if people rly wanna make bumper stickers about it, who am i to stop them.

the last two paragraph weren't for user Diablo_. it was just an open statement. i don't even know why i quoted him tbh.

Ophiel · #**144** 07-19-2008, 03:17 PM

I've heard people do it, and... I dunno. I can imagine that, in the absence of a word for homo they might have used eunuch. But I'm surprised that, in the absence of a word for homo, they wouldn't have just come up with one.

kesh · #**145** 07-19-2008, 07:37 PM

the phrase for gayness in leviticus is lying with man as with a woman. jesus knew his scripture so if he wanted to say that he could have

Amity · #**146** 07-19-2008, 07:42 PM

Has anyone asked yet WHY you'd want someone who was disapproving of homosexuality to conduct your gay marriage?

Champers · #**147** 07-19-2008, 09:59 PM

^ very valid question, but really, should it be such a state of affairs that people feel compulsed to ask if the person officiating a ceremony is genuinely "down" with it and feel it doesn't offend their "sensibilities"? The person in question was employed by Islington Council - in effect, unless she was bereft of general intelligence, she KNEW the environment she was working in. Loathe as I am to play upon stereotypes, I'm willing to hazard a guess that she would NOT have hesitated to levy accusations if she felt her race or religion were, for lack of a better term, "compromised".

AshMcAuliffe · #**148** 07-20-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ophiel

I've heard people do it, and... I dunno. I can imagine that, in the absence of a word for homo they might have used eunuch. But I'm surprised that, in the absence of a word for homo, they wouldn't have just come up with one.

that woulda been a sight to behold... the ancients coming up with some kinda abuse... the ancients wandering down the streets shouting "Oi! Shirt-lifter..."

plus the greek translation of Eunuch is "An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man." and thats basically what people think when they of gay men... we arent truly men and apparently we're all effeminate.

ella luciana · #**149** 07-20-2008, 08:13 AM

I didn't read the entire thread, but I felt pretty strongly about this case and kind of want to post more than I want to read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshMcAuliffe

The States is more liberal than the UK

Why do you think that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cricket

it doesn't sound like she was trying to deny anyone their legal right. she just didn't want to perform the ceremony herself. is that really so bad?

I think it is. She's a public servant, she's not paid by some private company. Her role is to marry people, and in choosing that job and signing that contract, I believe she was giving up her right to discriminate. When at work. She can be an anti-gay rights campaigner at the weekends if she wants, but as a public servant, when she's at work, she is obliged to do her job and serve the public. Even if they are screaming queens.

She chose to do this job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildwoman

Not the same thing, she isn't a church official. This is the UK equivilent of a city hall wedding (which I vaguely understand to be more common there?). She works for the government, these unions are legal under that government.

It looks like they had no plan to deal with this at all. I'm inclined toward 'do the job or find another one' but I might accept a policy to just allow her not to have to perform those ceremonies, as long as they happened and people didn't have to wait around extra time. I know they said other people always performed them, but it's not at all clear whether this was formal or ad-hoc. Did couples cool their heels in the offices while some low level clerical person ran around looking for an available registrar? Hassling her about it was also fairly pointless, either she should have been told straight-up that she doen't get to pick and choose or she should have been accomodated, not this in-between stuff. 'Threatening her with the sack' is one thing, 'bullying' is another.

Basically, I'm inclined to say don't be a registrar if you're not comfortable with the functions required, but I suppose she probably had this job before the civil partnerships were legal (maybe anyone in the same situation should be offered a different civil service job at the same level, salary, etc., not having to relocate and whatnot? if that's possible). I'm not utterly without sympathy to the religious freedom argument, but when you break it down, it still seems that the religious argument involves not being comfortable with other people being allowed to do things, whereas when you argue for the right to be married, you're arguing for the right not to be personally constrained by other people's religious beliefs.

As ever, I feel you're hitting nails right on the head. I love you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amity

Just because the Church allows gay marriage, you can't force the vicar to perform the ceremony.

That's true but this was not supposed to be a church-affiliated wedding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildwoman

How do registry office marriages work anyway? Is an appointment set up ahead of time in all cases, or does it also happen that couples just show up, wait on line, and get married by the registrar who is on walk-in duty that day? When people make appointments, have they already both been to the office for a UK equivalent of the marriage license you have to apply for ahead of time, so that the office would know if it’s a same-sex couple even if the first names don’t make that clear?

In Scotland, at least, the banns need to be posted for something like two weeks, so there should be time to find someone not homophobic to perform a civil ceremony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kesh

I don't understand why she hasn't objected to marrying anyone before. Aren't straight marriages outside of the church also sinful, in that any consummation would be fornication?

This puzzled me too. I typed "pizzled" there, and liked it.

PrincessTrae · #**150** 07-20-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thumperlyn

People have as much right to hate as others do to love. It's the way of the world.
But she may not even HATE really. It says she has a history of treating gays equally, she just can't do this one thing.
All religions have rules, ideals, and such. Christianity is traditionally NOT down with homosexuality, in fact MANY world religions share this thought. Everyone knows this. It's not a NEW issue. So DON'T look to a traditionally idealed Christian to join in a gay pride parade and you'll be fine. Stick to your own sides of the fence and everyone's happy. Gays don't wanna hang wit bible thumpers anymore than the opposite is true. That hippie bullshit where we're all one happy family and meant to merge into one, is crap.
SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE HER FAITH! Which means there are certain things she can't morally (her own personal morality) do. It's okay. It doesn't make her a bitch. It doesn't make her worthy of being kicked in the cunt or whatever. A hard-core Muslim can't preform a gay marriage either. And their consequences are MUCH higher. She ain't about to be your best friend, but who cares?

Seriously you do realize you bitching about a fear of them taking over the world is paralleled by them. They are equally as afraid of a liberal mentality changing the world, which it HAS. Being gay has NEVER been so acceptable, flaunted, and yes- even encouraged. Not just homosexuality, but sexuality in general. Don't worry, y'all are winning. Why can't someone not be okay with homosexuality? Why can't someone not like you? As long as they aint hindering you any (which she wasn't. It ain't like anyone was turned away) You don't like them, right? You don't have to. If suddenly Jesus himself came down and said, "Okay guyz, buttsects is cool. I changed my mind." And all Christians flipped the script on that issue, would you suddenly like them?? Hell, no you wouldn't.
I don't like all the $$ movin around for such a dumb issue though.

HEAR! HEAR!

Agreed in full.

PrincessTrae · #**151** 07-20-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diablo_

this ruling is ridculous, illogical and i can't believe people are applauding it. the case has actually enraged me a little bit.

first off, it's wrong because these are CIVIL ceremonies, not religious. (incidentally, if she was so concerned about her stupid "faith", why is she even performing any weddings at all that aren't in front of ~the Lord~? i'm pretty sure her flock or w/e would not be OK with that)

it would be interesting if she performs weddings of those who have been divorced before. i'm guessing she doesn't consider that as sinful. or judaism/islam etc. hypocrite.

thirdly, her claims of being "bullied and threatened" to anybody who has been following the case are creepy, gross and must be taken with a fistful of salt. the article portrays her sympathetically because, well, it's the daily telegraph. like a shrill cunt, she's actually shouted about gay rights being "a menace" which "tramples on religious freedom". well ok then. just the regular old repulsive christian persecution complex.

finally, it's actually ILLEGAL to deny goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation in this country now. i really, really don't know why this verdict passed. it is literally placing religious belief above the law. not so long ago, christianity was used as a device to promote racism - would all those in this thread who are so precious about christians' ~beliefs~, allow a christian registrar, funded by taxpayers (gay taxpayers included), to carry on officiating these weddings if they refused to see black people because they think their god punishes blacks by way of the curse of cain? i mean really now.

Hmm...Interesting point.

Champers · #**152** 07-20-2008, 01:16 PM

When the tribunal determine the amount of the settlement in September, will Miss Ladele:

a) do the proper Christian thing and give the money to Save The Children or some other equally deserving charity?

or (and call me "cynical")

b) spend it on Louis Vuitton luggage, porcelain dalmations and rolled gold jewellery?

AshMcAuliffe · #**153** 07-20-2008, 01:52 PM

i've changed my mind.... america is not more liberal than england... Thank god im English...

Ophiel · #**154** 07-21-2008, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amity

Has anyone asked yet WHY you'd want someone who was disapproving of homosexuality to conduct your gay marriage?

a) if it is the only way to gain the same legal standing as a heterosexual couple
or
b) just to annoy them.

Both worthy causes though, frankly. I used to believe that everyone was entitled to their opinion, before I found out how stupid everyone was. Way I see it, no-one has any excuse for hating gays, and tolerating homophobia as if it's a fucking "life-choice" is, frankly, gay.

Ophiel · #**155** 07-21-2008, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thumperlyn

All religions have rules, ideals, and such. Christianity is traditionally NOT down with homosexuality, in fact MANY world religions share this thought.

You're aware, though, that there is a difference between religion and tradition, right?

It gets tough when you have religious beliefs mixed up with religion, because a religious belief is simply a belief that has a basis in a religious text, or, if you're clever, a belief that can be shown to have a basis in a religious text. The problem is, The Bible is hugely open to interpretation. You've only got to look at the broad range of Christians and the schism that's occurring to ask: if one Christian can read the Bible and not have a problem with gay people getting married, so why can't another?

Tradition and religion are not the same. Religion is used to engrain and bolster tradition, but tradition is merely collective habit, and no more or less magical. But why is a traditional belief based on religion any more acceptable in America than a traditional belief that isn't based on religion? Why would a traditional ritual sacrifice not be entirely acceptable? Yes, murder is against the law, but so is discrimination based on sexual orientation! Is there a list somewhere of laws that can/can't be effectively over-ridden by the right to religious freedom? Or is it just a case of, whoever has the audacity to make the claim won't be argued with?

In summary: lots of stupid things are traditional, and most traditions are optional. Even if we accept homosexuality as a sin, you are allowed to get married if you've committed sins. No Christian questions whether a thief or a murderer or a usurer should be allowed to get married in a Christian church with lots of Christian crap on the walls; why is this particularly sin any different? Not because of religion, but because of tradition.

Ophiel · #**156** 07-21-2008, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AshMcAuliffe

i've changed my mind.... america is not more liberal than england... Thank god im English...

England is a lot better, but there seem to be a fair amount of people in this country who use American morality to justify dredging up crap that Europe flushed decades or even centuries ago. I think our pagan traditions help a bit; the fact that, as a culture, we have always had a sense of humour about the complexities of gender (think Christopher Lee in a Sandy Shaw wig in The Wicker Man, the Cantebury Tales, the traditional pantomime dame, right up to comedy such as Monty Python or Les Dawson's drag stuff), and I think that survives even when the reason for it has gone. We're a lot more tolerant because we've been encouraged to be.

Yes, there's room for improvement, but the fact that we're seen as a harmless joke, rather than a threatening cancer, seems to make that improvement a lot easier here than in the US.