To thjink that MPs should not legistate on whether the church of england should hold same sex marriages

[ReallyTired]

I feel its right that religious organisations are not forced to hold gay marriage cermonies. Freedom of religion is as important as equality for homosexuals. I feel that the matter of same sex marriages should be a matter of conscience for a religious leader. No synagogue, mosque or church should be forced to support gay marriage.

However I am unhappy that the church of england has been banned by MPs who may not even be christian from holding gay marriage cermonies. I feel that the matter of gay marriage should be decided by the general synod of the church of england. Our local priest offers to bless civil partnerships and I am sure she would be very happy to conduct a same sex wedding.

I would like homosexuals to be offered a list of churches where the priest would be happy to bless a gay marriage. I do not like homosexuals being shut out of our churches. (Assuming that the homosexual couple has a connection with a church or that its their nearest church which is prepared to carry out a blessing. As far as possible homosexual couples should meet the same criteria rules as hetrosexual couples.)

She decided my points were 'silly' long before I suggested her terminology might be offensive

i think your point was silly. and yes I think you have kept on point (I didn't take any attack personally).

That using the term the gays is, at the very least, lacking in social skills

there are a few problems with the criticism of me. first, I never used the terms 'the gays'. I quote myself here.

it shouldn't be for you or me or gays to decide who belongs in the CofE. it should be the CofE and its members. Just like any other religion.

My point is clear. the point isn't that gay people aren't legitimate members of the CofE who shouldn't have a (proportionate) voice (that's my opinion, the CofE may differ). the point is that non-members shouldn't have a say.

Second, I somewhat reluctantly conceded that my language may have been offensive, but then asked for clarification of when such language was usable, to which I have received no reply. Specifically, I asked how one should properly word The Indians shouldn't get to weigh in on arranged marriage legislation.? I haven't received any reply to that. My guess is because that wording is correct (perhaps better worded if "The" is removed), in which case it seems whether or not you can nounify an adjective is group dependent.

Furthermore, if you notice, since having had my off colour remarks highlighted, I haven't used them and have used "gay people" instead.

red, I do appreciate you saying you didn't see personal attacks.

But you're quoting someone else - it wasn't me who said that using 'the gays' means you're lacking social skills. That was ourblanche. What I was saying was that, to me, it's a pejorative term when it's used in a context of exclusion. The time I did quote the phrase 'the gays', I quoted really and I addressed my point to her, not you.

So perhaps that's the root of the confusion?

To be clear, I don't think either you or really is saying anything I disagree with hugely. But I do worry about the wider issue - which is replicated all over the media. People keep acknowledging that, yes, gay people (and bisexuals?) are part of the C of E. But, rapidly, they use language that opposes 'the Church' to 'the gays', while arguing that the latter group shouldn't have any say in what goes on in the former. This is what you do, when you make arguments about members and non-members, and then include 'gays' in the latter group.

I did reply to your request for clarification. You missed my post at 16.26, where I suggested a valid option might be not saying these things. I made that post, because it seemed pretty obvious to me that saying (for example) that 'The Indians shouldn't get to weigh in on arranged marriage legislation' is a biased statement. People make these suggestions because they are being bigoted. You didn't intend your statement about 'gays' and the Church to come across in the same way, but it does. If your only argument for discriminating against a group is that they belong to a discriminated-against group, then I'd suggest you need to rethink the argument.

You missed my post at 16.26, where I suggested a valid option might be not saying these things. I made that post, because it seemed pretty obvious to me that saying (for example) that 'The Indians shouldn't get to weigh in on arranged marriage legislation' is a biased statement.

but what if you want to make that point? How would you say it? Anyway, it's not important.

Back to the issue, I never said gay people should be discriminated against. I am FOR gay marriage. My point is with the OP - that the issue is complicated by the fact the church is established, in which case non-members rightly want a say.

As for gay people being slowly chiselled off the body of the CofE into an "other" in the media, I haven't really paid attention so can't comment. But that's not what I was doing. I, and I think others, have repeatedly said that gay CofE members should have a voice in the CofE like everyone else. The establishment complicates things because non-members, gay and straight alike, feel they should also have a say and sway the church towards same sex marriage.

With me, I don't want a say in the CofE. And I don't want them to have a say in my government.

The two things are inextricable. If you wanted to say, 'I stigmatize Indians for their views, because I generalise about them as a group', it would be utterly pointless to say that in language that implied you were not stigmatizing them as a group. Surely?

I do understand you're for gay marriage. But you are also coming across as someone who habitually assumes that gay people aren't normative Christians, and aren't representative of the C of E. If you don't think this way, then surely, you wouldn't say it - even when posting in a hurry?

If you don't think this way, then surely, you wouldn't say it - even when posting in a hurry?

as I have explained, I was saying non-members shouldn't have a say, implying nothing about the membership of gay people.

Why would I assume gay people aren't members? obviously they are.

The two things are inextricable.

apparently they are though, from your distinction of 'gay people' and 'gays'. you object to the latter because it suggests the defining quality is the only, or primary, quality of the group. why doesn't that apply to indians (or should I say "indian people")? you may be perfectly correct that 'gays' is neanderthal usage, but it appears that using 'indians' ought to be as well.

I have said repeatedly that using 'indians' is just as bigoted.

And I have also pointed out that context matters.

I don't know exactly why you would assume gay people aren't members of the C of E. I suspect the reason isn't because you, personally, are trying to discriminate. I expect you mean well. But, somewhere along the line, you have taken on the notion that the Anglican Church is somehow a separate entity from anything including gay people, and you're much more comfortable talking about gay people as a group opposed to the Anglican Church.

I do see why you do this, and why many people do it. But you do see it's also alienating, right?

Yes, it was me, I said that. I erroneously added italics to 'the'. My apologies for the inaccuracy.

But I was trying to explain that it is the use of the plural is deemed offensive, just like 'aneamics' and 'dyslexics' and responding directly to your asking about LGBT and quoting that as Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders, the plurals are not there, it is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.

As I said yesterday, I wasn't trying to be offensive, I was under the impression that you were wholly unaware that your posts could be read in a negative manner and was undermining what you were trying to say.

I have said repeatedly that using 'indians' is just as bigoted

So, what's the correct usage? Make up a sentence using 'indian people'.

Ok, as you say, it is context dependent, and it appears group dependent. Given that I have never heard the term "indian people", I can only assume the common way to refer to group of Indians is "Indian"

As I said yesterday, I wasn't trying to be offensive, I was under the impression that you were wholly unaware that your posts could be read in a negative manner and was undermining what you were trying to say.

that's fine. I have taken that on board. I was further asking for clarification on the usage of plurals with other groups. Do you know the answer?

Yet she has repeatedly told you she doesn't! And I certainly didn't think that was what she meant. It's merely what you would like her to have meant.

Honestly. I don't know how to make it more clear than the most recent posts from me.

Why would I assume gay people aren't members? obviously they are.

or

I, and I think others, have repeatedly said that gay CofE members should have a voice in the CofE like everyone else.

is that not clear?

I did say, twice I think, that is was the word 'gay' used as a plural noun tat was the issue. It is an adjective.

Gay members of the CofE
Gay people / people who are gay

Indian people, Pakistani people, Afganistani people... the people in that group are Indian or those Indian people

Sounds all po-faced, doesn't it But I could never say those anaemics over there or those dyslexics, so I couldn't make it right it say those gays over there.

Sounds all po-faced, doesn't it

that was my point. Nobody says indian people.

and as for the christian people in the CofE, they should decide on CofE policies.

I am not saying it's right to say "gays", and it might have been my fault for this detour, but I think it's a rather minor point.

Actually, given how far ranging the post has been, it has been a bit odd that, now the Anglican meeting is over and the decision made, there has been no further discussion of it. I did try, a couple of pages back

Seem that the Christians aren't up to defending the decision. Maybe there will be more of an outcry when the government does ratify the decision, then secular posters can get outraged too!

Unless the church of England decides to stop being involved in education, then they do not have a leg to stand on, get rid of faith schools, and then what they do won't be any of concern.

Except in state schools, of course!

I fear I may have started this. Sorry.