CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:48 pm
 


http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/milli ... z2wMRfUXRr

Full original title:

Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

$1:
DANBURY, U.K.–A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding. The Drewitt-Barlows, a millionaire couple from the U.K, stated, “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples."

Both attend St. John the Baptist church, a branch of the Church of England, and have been in a civil partnership since 2006.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

This reaffirms statements that Drewitt-Barlow made earlier this month, stating going to court was, “the only way forward.”


Can't wait to see a gay couple sue for the right to get married in a mosque.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:50 pm
 


Hope they lose. Hope that Britain has the same laws as Canada and the Judge charges these twits with full costs of the church.

We need a term like gayfluenza to denote when gays just get too demanding.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9914
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:56 pm
 


They're just being spoiled rich bitches. They have the money to sue, they're clearly bored, they have a "cause" and figure that every special interest group deserves what ever they cry for loud enough. They can go jump of the London bridge and get their vows on the way down. This political correctness shit is getting out of hand.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:57 pm
 


Well, it's teh UK so who knows. I don't think that their argument would fly here though.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:59 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Well, it's teh UK so who knows. I don't think that their argument would fly here though.


What a shame that you don't know that for sure. Hate to say, I won't totally rule this out in the USA either.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2375
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:06 pm
 


:roll: Bart, I get what you're trying to do.

But lets dispel any myths here. As a gay man, I have no desire to ever get married in a religious institution that's core tenants and institution oppose the recognition of my marriage. I can only speak for myself. Still, I'm very confident the vast majority of gays and lesbians would be of the same thinking.

We want the right to civil marriage. Freedom of religion reserves the right of any religious organization to not have to perform or rent out facilities to a person/group that directly contravenes their conscious and beliefs. On the opposite side, there is an increasing number of Christian denominations (and Jewish sects) that support same-sex unions. Those churches/synagogues/etc. have the right to perform gay weddings if they wish.

This couple is misguided in their lawsuit and I truly hope its quickly thrown out in the U.K. courts. I understand why they're doing it. As the article states, they've been parishioners at their village church for a very long time and it sounds like the local church/ministers WANT to marry the couple. However, the organization at large bars them from doing so. They should have taken their grievance to the national/international hierarchy of their church -- not to civil courts.

However, another interesting aspect of this case, which you fail to mention, is that its in the Church of England (Anglican aligned) which is a state established church in England. Queen Elizabeth, as monarch in the U.K., as one of her roles is "Defender of the Faith" and has a ceremonial role in that church. A quick google search helped me find that:

(a) Taxpayer money in the U.K. doesn't directly fund the church organizations
(b) However, Church of England schools received taxpayer funding
(c) 26 seats in the U.K. House of Lords are reserved exclusively for the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Durham & Winchester and the remaining 21 seats going to Bishops in order of seniority.

This isn't a cut and paste cookie cutter situation to the constitutional approach to religious freedom that the U.S. enjoys. Many European nations (i.e. Sweden and Lutheran church) have state established churches and automatic baptisms, etc.

So while, any non-Church-of-England religious organization should not be compelled to marry same-sex couples in regards to their freedom of religion, arguments could be reasonably made that the Church of England with its state status and privileges is a unique situation.

I'm not British and don't know that history, but I could be motivated by an argument that the Church of England should be offered a choice:

Either marry same-sex couples and have female bishops or remain steadfast to your teachings/beliefs and resign away your House of Lord seats, state status and taxpayer funding in ways of education. Still their freedom. Just make the choice. If they want state status they should embody the values of that society and the equal rights that society embraces.

My hopefully balanced two cents...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:28 pm
 


What are they going to do--handcuff the pastor and throw him in jail? Shut down the church and all the local charity work it supports? A church isn't the same as a coffee shop refusing to serve gays.

What gay man in their right mind would be a Christian anyways? God's instructions for practciing male homosexuals are quite explicit in the Bible: they are to be put to death.

Sometimes I just can't figure people out.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 New York Rangers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11240
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:48 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/#axzz2wMRfUXRr

Full original title:

Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

$1:
DANBURY, U.K.–A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding. The Drewitt-Barlows, a millionaire couple from the U.K, stated, “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples."

Both attend St. John the Baptist church, a branch of the Church of England, and have been in a civil partnership since 2006.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

This reaffirms statements that Drewitt-Barlow made earlier this month, stating going to court was, “the only way forward.”


Can't wait to see a gay couple sue for the right to get married in a mosque.

And have Andy Chaudry of the UK marry them.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2375
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:00 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
What are they going to do--handcuff the pastor and throw him in jail? Shut down the church and all the local charity work it supports? A church isn't the same as a coffee shop refusing to serve gays.

What gay man in their right mind would be a Christian anyways? God's instructions for practciing male homosexuals are quite explicit in the Bible: they are to be put to death.

Sometimes I just can't figure people out.


First. Like I already said. I think church's have the right to refuse. I was simply suggesting this case is unique as of the state status of the Church of England. I think its reasonable to argue that in this day of age no church should have official state status and special political patronage appointments (like the Church of England gets in the House of Lords) and taxpayer funding for their school. But its a legacy thing. I think the anointment of female bishops and performance of same-sex marriages could be argued as something the Church of England (but only them) could be required to do if they wish to maintain their status quo as a state church. If they want the freedom to not have female bishops or perform same-sex weddings than give up their state status. Pretty common sense to me.

The latter half of your comments are outright foolish. There's a lot of talk about "cherry picking" verses on the Bible. All sides are guilty of it. However your assumptions are very limited and narrow.

It is not insane for a gay man to be a Christian. Its also not against Christian teachings to be an LGBT straight supporter and support same-sex marriage while being a devout Christian. Why? Well its interpretation of the Bible.

1) Leviticus. The most common verse anti-gay Christians throw out there is:

Leviticus 20:13 Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Pretty damning and straight forward I'll give you that. However, consider these other "abominations" listed in Leviticus as well:

Leviticus 11:10 Leviticus 11:10:
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you


Leviticus 19:19 Leviticus 19:19:
Do not plant your field with two different kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread.


Alrighty, so on par with homosexual gay sex being an abomination, you're also going to be cast straight to Hell for eating shellfish, wearing clothes of two or more types of material, or planting two different kinds of crops.

Its called context I actually recently studies this in an English class I'm currently in. First of all, most Christians realize the Old Testament (OT) is not something we follow to the letter anymore. Its metaphorical stories about the Jews and people of this time period. Leviticus, in particular, is a chapter concerned with the obsession of purity that the Heretic Jews of this region and this time espoused. Leviticus is also full of endless verses condemning women for their periods, for being "dirty" giving birth and all these rituals of isolating themselves after they've touched something or if they give birth to a girl she must go through a period of purification for twice as long as a male birth. A lot of the Old Testament is full of stories that pertain to the culture of the peoples at the time and have no bearing on our lives today.

2) Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis 19:4-7 Genesis 19:4-7:
Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!


The other classic line thrown out by anti-gay Christians. It is clear that sexual misconduct is a major sin and part of the reason God destroyed the city. However, many theologians and scholars have argued quite well that the real taboo about this whole story is the issue of hospitality. Lot had entertained guests within the city without the knowledge of the elders. He refused to introduce them to the elders. The word yada in Hebrew means know(s) and usually refers to sexuality in the Bible, but in this circumstance it means to acquaint. The culture of the time considered it very sinful to have guests without the permission of the elders.

Also, its been well argued the sin wasn't the homosexual conduct but rather the gang rape of the angels by the immoral men of the cities. Whether that gang rape was gay or straight. But preachers sum it up in nice simple bow-tie terms as it being God's condemnation of homosexuality and fail to acknowledge the major issue of hospitality in this Genesis story.

3) Old Testament in General

We don't stone people anymore. We don't allow for polygamous marriages anymore. A host of moral codes and punishments outlined in the OT are not viewed as realistic today. Any Christian or pastor that claims to believe the Bible to its very concrete word is lying and is a fool.

Jesus Christ came to this world and died on the Cross to start a New Covenant. His sacrifice on the cross was to forgive all our sins but to also push the world forward into a new era. His Ultimate Sacrifice forever ended the need to sacrifice lambs or any of that other stuff of the past. He was the lamb that died for us. Therefore, while there are many useful metaphorical lessons in the OT, the NT and Christ's life turned the page on that chapter (pardon the pun).

So Christians pointing to verses in the OT to defend their anti-gay beliefs are grasping at straws.

4) Jesus Christ never uttered one word about homosexuality.

In fact, Jesus associated himself with the outcasts of society. He reached out to the guy with leprosy. He talked to Mary Magdeline (prostitute) at the fountain when everyone else shunned her. He took on the Romans and their unjust tax collection. He was an advocate of the poor.

Christ was the furthest thing from a defender of the establishment. He never spoke on homosexuality and it is my sincere belief as a Christian that when He returns one day (whether in my life or thousands of years from now) he will shake His head in shame at the prejudice of His church and the perversion of the Scripture that has been done in His name.

---

If there was one clear cut belief and take on religion we wouldn't have the Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox divide and dozens of denominations under that. Christians worldwide differ greatly on many aspects of the Bible and rituals. However they're all still Christians. Why?

Because the foundation of Christianity, the essence of it, is the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who came to this earth some odd 2,000 years ago to die on the Cross for our sins thus making the ultimate Sacrifice. Also, that He will return someday at an hour, day and year no man will ever predict again someday.

Everything else is a matter of Scripture and interpretation. There is many websites that do a stand up job at defusing the Christian Right's anti-gay talking points. There's also an increasing amount of Christians who are adopting this interpreation of their belief and support same-sex marriage:

The Los Angeles Times The Los Angeles Times:
Although most religious groups have opposed same-sex marriage on theological grounds, the current poll found that their members have different views. Majorities of Jewish, 83%, white mainline Protestants, 62%, white Catholics, 58%, and Latino Catholics, 56%, said they support gay marriage.


More: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... z2wQdCD8nG

I'll leave it there. No offence Zip, but your quite off the mark on this one. My experience growing up as a Baptist Christian was overwhelmingly negative. I don't attend church to this day. Once my parents accepted and embraced me they stopped attending church as well. After working through my hurt and anger though I realized that God wasn't the one inflicting the pain on me. It was men. Men capable of much sin and injustice. Mere men who perverted His Scripture to further their own prejudiced agenda. Once I was able to make that distinction I made my slow trek back to becoming a Christian.

I will not allow these mere men to strip me of my heritage and my identity as a Christian going back countless generations. I don't know if I'll ever find a church to call home again, but I sure as heck will advocate for the inclusion of LGBT Christians in the Christian community and defend our presence and our supporters as NOT out of tune with Scripture, but rather very much in tune with the nuances of the Bible, interpretation and the focus on Christ's love and acceptance of society's most marginalized.

So yah, I'm a gay man and I am a (non-denominational/non attending) Christian. There's millions of gay Christians like me. And I can assure you -- we aren't crazy. We are't hypocrites. And we don't cherry pick the Bible. Our former oppressors on the right are the ones who embody those qualities.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:32 am
 


Leviticus 11:10 wrote:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you



Hmmmmm ... an eternity in hell for a lobster dinner ... I might just take you up on that!


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 580
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:14 am
 


Even the present Pope is lightening up on the whole gay thing in the Catholic church.
It's just a matter of few more leaps towards common sense that the understanding that gays are just normal folk too.

Why not let them be married in the church they pray in?

Far too much nonsense in arguing over this.

It's the last gasp of puerile church leaders in claiming that LGBT is something other than just normal human endeavour.

The walls these people created are turning to scabs on a leper. and the sooner these people die off the sooner we all just get along a little bit better , as God intended.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2375
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:19 am
 


Lets not forget the role of Christian priests/pastors in justifying the enslavement and segregation of African Americans in the South.

But then it was Christian abolitionists and civil rights leaders that ended this injustice too!



Same arguments used against interracial marriage just inverting the word gay instead of interracial by this pastor. Fascinating stuff. Same conservative Christians claimed that "mixing" the races was wrong, and used the notion of parentalism and obedience to keep slaves in line in the era of slavery.

Its not inconceivable to me that someday (but still, not for a long while), the anti-gay stuff will fall to the dustbins of history in the mainstream Christian churches. But still given the current day reality, I'm talking like a least 50 years to a century for that to happen.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:30 am
 


Even the present Pope is lightening up on the whole gay thing in the Catholic church.

All that he has to do is look around him and he'll realize that half of his clergy is gay ... a particularly repressed form, mind you. I'm sure that he already knows that as did every other pope before him since the started insisting on a celibate priesthood. The present pope appears to have a better grasp on reality than any other that I've see in my lifetime.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:54 pm
 


westmanguy westmanguy:
:roll: Bart, I get what you're trying to do.


I'm not trying to do anything here. The gay couple are the ones with the lawsuit, not me.

If you're upset that this story paints gays in a bad light then feel free to write to them and ask them to drop this lawsuit.

But as I read your post it sounds like you support them, don't you? You think they have a right to force their views on the Anglican Church because it's a state church and gays have a right to be married in that church because they're subjects of the Crown.

Right?

Okay, so let's say your argument is accepted by the courts.

Next up will be the Muslims who some years back asserted the right to hold services in St. Paul's and Westminster under the exact same argument.

Don't forget about the Irish Catholics who live in Liverpool and Belfast - they'll need the right to hold Catholic services in Anglican churches, too.

And past this particular genie never going back in the bottle there's a point I've raised before in that gays are pushing too hard and they need to take a time out and then come back for more.

Because by keeping this 'in your face' brand of confrontational politics in the media the gays are absolutely going to fan the flames of resistance against them. In particular the fundamentlist Muslims who already hate Western gays will use this particular issue to great delight in their rants to their angry mobs.

And what's to happen if a mob of angry Muslims prevents a gay couple from marrying at a church that's opposed to gay marriage?

The politically correct UK police will have to sit on their hands lest they offend either side.

Say what you will, I think you folks are playing with a powder keg and I need only point at Russia and Uganda as examples of what can happen...and I do believe that we have not seen the worst yet. I say that because you know Russia and Uganda will use this event to crack down even harder on gays.

I think this is a very stupid idea and that gay people who don't live in the UK will pay a high price for the arrogance of these two selfish jerks.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:58 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Say what you will, I think you folks are playing with a powder keg and I need only point at Russia and Uganda as examples of what can happen...and I do believe that we have not seen the worst yet. I say that because you know Russia and Uganda will use this event to crack down even harder on gays.

I think this is a very stupid idea and that gay people who don't live in the UK will pay a high price for the arrogance of these two selfish jerks.



Just thought about gays going to an Orthodox church in Moscow to try and get married.

Death by mob. :)


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.