Victory for British Christian over Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a Christian, I would have to view civil marriage as nothing more than a legal contract between two people, as God is not part of the equation.

Therefore, I should a) not care whether the participants are gay or heterosexual, as the contract is nothing more than a legal agreement, or b) as a Christian, refrain from being a marriage registrar, since I am providing what amounts to a license to have sex without God’s blessing. Whether the participants are straight or gay would be immaterial.
 
Mjae said:
As a Christian, I would have to view civil marriage as nothing more than a legal contract between two people, as God is not part of the equation.

Therefore, I should a) not care whether the participants are gay or heterosexual, as the contract is nothing more than a legal agreement, or b) as a Christian, refrain from being a marriage registrar, since I am providing what amounts to a license to have sex without God’s blessing. Whether the participants are straight or gay would be immaterial.
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s quite material since as Christians we’re supposed to believe that marriage is between man and woman.

I guess God was only kidding in Leviticus when man was not supposed to lie with man like a man lies with a woman. :rolleyes:
 
My point was that, as a Christian, I don’t see ‘civil marriage’ as any such thing, since God is not included in this contract. As a Christian, why would I take part in such a ceremony at all, regardless of the sex of the participants?
 
LRThunder said:
Actually, it’s quite material since as Christians we’re supposed to believe that marriage is between man and woman.

I guess God was only kidding in Leviticus when man was not supposed to lie with man like a man lies with a woman. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually your spot on, just as he was kidding in Leviticus when he said
19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
Click to expand...
Be wary those that wear polyester blends or have wheat and barely in the same field, eagh gad zukes the vegie patch is a sin its ABOMINATION…

There was also an instance when god said that men should not have long hair, because your a tart if you did. But I can’t remember where that one was, It’s a good one though…

See the thing is gods got a good sense of humor, he’s a kidder that one… And I’m glad at least someone figured it out…
 
“This is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position. Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs.”
Click to expand...
WOW i never thought i would hear that line, usually its the other way around, or has been for the last 1000+ years…
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, said: “Public servants are paid by taxpayers to deliver public services. They shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who they deliver those services to. Doubtless 40 years ago there were moral objections to mixed-race marriages. Quite rightly such objections would no longer be entertained.”
Click to expand...
Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, said: “Lillian Ladele claims she was won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate.”
Click to expand...
Thankfully the article is finished with some sense…
 
Mjae said:
My point was that, as a Christian, I don’t see ‘civil marriage’ as any such thing, since God is not included in this contract. As a Christian, why would I take part in such a ceremony at all, regardless of the sex of the participants?
Click to expand...
Because like the end of the article suggested, it’s your job and your getting paid by taxpayers money, so man up and do your job or find a new profession and stop whining…

What about a butcher who refused to carve up pig on religious grounds? Or a doctor who refused to work on the sabbath? Those examples are just the same.

I’m very annoyed that she won… Hopefully it doesn’t set a horrible precedence, that said i could totally use that precedence and it would be an awesome loophole…
 
Abbadon said:
WOW i never thought i would hear that line, usually its the other way around, or has been for the last 1000+ years…
Click to expand...
What is scary is that a large number of christians fully believe this sentiment. Self delusion at the extreme.
 
Abbadon said:
What about a butcher who refused to carve up pig on religious grounds? Or a doctor who refused to work on the sabbath? Those examples are just the same.
Click to expand...
Butcher’s can refuse to use swine. Kosher and Halal butchers exist all over the U.K. And doctor’s are allowed to take a day off.

This woman felt that she could not officiate over their ceremony, she should not have to. There are other gay friendly registrars that they can go to. If they were to force her to officiate over a gay civil unon now, it would just be to see her subjugated.
 
I wonder how she would feel about registering a heterosexual marriage where one or both parties were divorced.

After all, didn’t Jesus says such marriages were actually adultery?

Or does her Christian faith tolerate legalized heterosexual adultery?
 
LDNCatholic said:
Butcher’s can refuse to use swine. Kosher and Halal butchers exist all over the U.K. And doctor’s are allowed to take a day off.

This woman felt that she could not officiate over their ceremony, she should not have to. There are other gay friendly registrars that they can go to. If they were to force her to officiate over a gay civil unon now, it would just be to see her subjugated.
Click to expand...
Both bad examples I gave. Needs to be a public service where the taxpayers are the ones that are footing the bill. Judge? Refuses to be near women during their period for they are unclean, somewhere in leveticus or deuteronmy…

Thing is she has a job to do and its in her job description, she is not a private employee, she is part of a taxpayer funded organization.

Now say I’m a teacher, can I refuse to teach my female students on thier periods for relegious purposes?

I’m a soilder can i not fight on saturday?

I’m a butcher of a major butchery and i refuse to cut pig products, what happens to me? (I get fired)

taxpayer funded again i emphasize, I pay taxes and i’m not christian…
 
Abbadon said:
Both bad examples I gave. Needs to be a public service where the taxpayers are the ones that are footing the bill. Judge? Refuses to be near women during their period for they are unclean, somewhere in leveticus or deuteronmy…

Thing is she has a job to do and its in her job description, she is not a private employee, she is part of a taxpayer funded organization.

Now say I’m a teacher, can I refuse to teach my female students on thier periods for relegious purposes?

I’m a soilder can i not fight on saturday?

I’m a butcher of a major butchery and i refuse to cut pig products, what happens to me? (I get fired)

taxpayer funded again i emphasize, I pay taxes and i’m not christian…
Click to expand...
Over here doctors are part of a taxpayer funded organisation. They still get Sabbath of if Jewish I believe. Pro life doctors may also refuse to take part in abortion procedures and can refer the person to another doctor, much like gay couples may be referred to another registrar.

School teachers may work in single sex schools if gender differences cause a problem.
 
Abbadon said:
Because like the end of the article suggested, it’s your job and your getting paid by taxpayers money, so man up and do your job or find a new profession and stop whining…
Click to expand...
This is pretty much what I was trying to get at, though not as well expressed.
 
LDNCatholic said:
Over here doctors are part of a taxpayer funded organisation. They still get Sabbath of if Jewish I believe. Pro life doctors may also refuse to take part in abortion procedures and can refer the person to another doctor, much like gay couples may be referred to another registrar.

School teachers may work in single sex schools if gender differences cause a problem.
Click to expand...
I mean people have a day off anyway, and if a certain doctor takes the sabbath off as his day off thats fine, but if on taxpayers money he wants his day off and the sabath day off thats bull…

I can’t imagine how doctors are taxpayer funded, i mean patients are the ones that pay, even if bulk billed etc, that still the patient bieng taxpayer funded not the doctor…

See with doctors the same principle would apply, if the doctor was more valuable than him/her not preforming an abortion you obviously keep them, because they are. They would probably be an exception to the rule.

But with a registar, I don’t knwo, i’d just fire her and get a new one.

But that said if you make an exception for doctors (assuming they are taxpayer funded) then regardless the exception should be made for the registar as well…

But this will if a precendent is set, may cause several issues with, police, fireman etc… You can’t fire them for not doing there job becuase it was under a relegious ground…
 
oh i forgot to say i only know of 2 selective government schools and in my state only, every other single state school is private funded…

And that is exactly the point, if you don’t want to do you job find another one somewhere else, and stop winging… If you dont want to teach in mixed schools go teach in all girls/all boys…

If you don’t want to register gay unions go become a register in America or somewhere that your not obliged to. Or to a council that is okay with you not registering gays and reffering them instead, which is what she should have done in the first place.
 
Abbadon said:
I can’t imagine how doctors are taxpayer funded, i mean patients are the ones that pay, even if bulk billed etc, that still the patient bieng taxpayer funded not the doctor…
Click to expand...
Some ‘General Practitioners’ are self-employed and their income (from the funds of the ‘National Health Service’, not the patients directly) is based on the services they provide to their patients - ie they are contracted to provide general health care and various services in line with Health Service initiatives within their practice. Many of them, however, are paid salaries by the ‘National Health Service’ based on experience and length of service (as are hospital-based doctors).
 
Abbadon said:
I can’t imagine how doctors are taxpayer funded, i mean patients are the ones that pay, even if bulk billed etc, that still the patient bieng taxpayer funded not the doctor…
Click to expand...
In the U.K we do not pay for health care, instead a portion of our taxes supports the National Health Service.
 
LDNCatholic said:
In the U.K we do not pay for health care, instead a portion of our taxes supports the National Health Service.
Click to expand...
Is that for everyone or only the disadvantaged? Thats very European of Britain, it’s very good to hear…
 
LRThunder said:
Actually, it’s quite material since as Christians we’re supposed to believe that marriage is between man and woman.

I guess God was only kidding in Leviticus when man was not supposed to lie with man like a man lies with a woman. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I guess God was only kidding in Leviticus when a man commits adultery with his neighbours wife, they are both supposed to be put to death :rolleyes:

🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top