conciencious objections in the workplace, what to do?

JimiTime

hivizman wrote: »

In that situation, however, is the Christian registrar who refuses to perform civil partnerships trying to have things too easy?

I certainly think it reasonable if the registrar simply requests that she can't do these homosexual ceremonies but can do the multidude of other tasks that she's been doing for the last 16 years. If the employer has people who 'can' do these ceremonies, its simply a matter of rostering. I think its anything but easy for a Christian who is in this position.

This debate reminded me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's notion of costly discipleship, the idea that obedience to the teachings of Jesus, particularly in modern, secular societies, is not going to be painless, and that Christians will have to expect to make sacrifices to uphold their beliefs.

Doesn't mean they have to lie down and take it on the chin though. At the end of the day, if Christians become ostracised due to the secularisation of these once 'Christian' nations, then we have to deal with it. We don't have to lie down or just suck it up though. I think our nations are indebted to Christianity. They have also been active in encouraging it and helping it flourish. To now cast it aside like an old rag, and say its as valid as every other religion lacks hindsight and forsight. Now, I don't hold out any hope for forsight, I think mankind too easily forgets how and why we have the level of liberty we do. However in hindsight, I think the states encouragement of Christianity, and the fact that it permeates from the foundations of the nation right throughout it means that it IS special here. It IS more special than paganism. It IS more special than Islam etc. the states complicity in encouraging Christianity for centuries, means that they have a responsibility to Christians. To now simply pull the rug from under them and say, 'Yeah, I know we encouraged it, but now we're saying if you follow it, we'll sack you', is quite an injustice IMO. By all means be inclusive of those who aren't Christian, in fact I would see that as a Christian position. However, when the state puts people from an ideology they encouraged and supported for centuries on the spot and says, 'your compliance or your job', when there is a very, very simple compromise, I call shenanigans.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

the states complicity in encouraging Christianity for centuries, means that they have a responsibility to Christians.

Over the centuries various states have also been complicit in war, genocide, apartheid, etc. Times change, responsibilities change.

crotalus667

there have been alot of long responces what it boild down to is do your beliefs interfer with your job ??? if you answer no then do your job if you answer yes then get a different job

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Now, I don't hold out any hope for forsight, I think mankind too easily forgets how and why we have the level of liberty we do.

It is nonsensical to argue that we owe Christianity for the current level of liberty we have so we should turn back that liberty in order to place Christianity a level above everyone else.

If that is the sort of thing that Christianity brings us how is it responsible for our current level of liberty?

It is like men saying to women that feminism achieved equality for woman largely with the help of men, and as such women are indebted to men and it is only fair that men be given more rights than women because of this.

Christianity either promotes proper secularization and equality, in which case we certainly can be thankful for Christian tradition that lead to it but Christians should be happy we have proper secularization and equality and not try and promote Christianity to a special privileged position.

Or it doesn't promote proper secularization and equality of beliefs and you can continue to say Christianity should hold a special place in society but if that is the case we certainly don't have to thank Christianity for our current notions of liberty and equality since they obvious are incompatable.

Christianity can't both promote modern liberty and equality while at the same time promoting privilege for Christians, since that is the opposite of modern liberty and equality.

JimiTime

crotalus667 wrote: »

there have been alot of long responces what it boild down to is do your beliefs interfer with your job ??? if you answer no then do your job if you answer yes then get a different job

I really must laugh at this attitude. Like its as simple as, 'oh I'll just get another job now that they wont let me do this one anymore'.

16 years of Job security in the civil service. Where else can a civil registrar get work except from the state? Mortgage, children etc. Yet its so simple, Suck it up or F^*k off. I detest this heartless attitude passionately!

Faced with a choice of being able to compromise so that all parties are happy, most would rather soap box and say, 'thats the new rule now p!ss off if you don't like it.' Can't wait for this secular humanist utopia:rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Seriously Jimi, how many employers would facilitate someone who wanted to discriminate against a minority based on personal prejudice?

The fact that a job description changes - something common place in most tiers of professional life - and now highlights a personal prejudice is no reason for any employer to have to be complicit in their employees prejudices.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I really must laugh at this attitude. Like its as simple as, 'oh I'll just get another job now that they wont let me do this one anymore'.

You go on and on about the dishonesty of other posters yet continue to misrepresent this issue.

No one is not letting this woman do her job.

This woman does not want to do her job because of ethical concerns over what the job entails.

I'm sure it is hard for her, but she isn't the first person to have to make a choice between her conscience and her job. If she wants to leave her job because of this I say fair play to her, standing behind your convictions is not easy.

But what is not acceptable is the idea her employer has to accommodate her objections simply because she has them.

You know this is unworkable, which is why the clause that its just for Christians is always very quickly introduced into these debates.

If everyone was accommodated for simply not wanting to do their job things would grind to a halt. The argument is always Oh go on lets just make a special case for this Christian because she is a Christian.

That is unfair and illegal.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You go on and on about the dishonesty of other posters yet continue to misrepresent this issue.

:rolleyes:

No one is not letting this woman do her job.

This woman does not want to do her job because of ethical concerns over what the job entails.

No, she certainly DOES want to do her job. However, the employer has now said that her duties as a registrar include conducting civil union ceremonies. She WANTS to keep her job, but cannot do this part of it. Is it reasonable to tell a man confined to a wheelchair that his new duty is to climb stairs?

I'm sure it is hard for her, but she isn't the first person to have to make a choice between her conscience and her job. If she wants to leave her job because of this I say fair play to her, standing behind your convictions is not easy.

It certainly isn't, and the fact that there is a very simple compromise available its even sadder. IMO, fairness dictates that its not this black and white 'Rules are rules' scenario some are painting it. There is a person here. A person who can do her job, but has been asked to 'walk up the stairs'. When she says, 'but I can't, though I can continue the good work I've done for 16 years', is met with a, 'Cybermen' response of 'YOU MUST COMPLY'. Its an extremely cold way of doing things.

But what is not acceptable is the idea her employer has to accommodate her objections simply because she has them.

Christianity is part of her. The employer has done the equivalent of telling a cripple to walk or their fired. You think in terms of 'Its just a belief'. IT IS NOT though. It is part of the essence of ones very being. To ask someone to compromise it is like asking, 'could you just remove your leg please'.

You know this is unworkable, which is why the clause that its just for Christians is always very quickly introduced into these debates.

Its entered in, so that we don't have to deal with muppets and their hypothtical, 'What about me and my pink unicorn who get offended by chinese people'.

If everyone was accommodated for simply not wanting to do their job things would grind to a halt. The argument is always Oh go on lets just make a special case for this Christian because she is a Christian.

Well the state has encouraged and helped Christianity flourish, so whatever way you paint it, it IS different. It is engrained in our culture. It IS different to whatever other scenario you wish to raise.

crotalus667

JimiTime wrote: »

now that they wont let me do this one anymore'.:

no one is stoping any one from doing their job the op is the one that is choseing to do or not to do it , you get paid to do a jod you either do it or you dont if you dont you either leave or get fired

JimiTime wrote: »

Where else can a civil registrar get work except from the state? Mortgage, children etc.

thats for the op to figure out , although one must questen some one's belief that there enternal soul is a t risk if they even have to think about the choice

eternal damnation or a job as a civil servent

crotalus667

JimiTime wrote: »

. Is it reasonable to tell a man confined to a wheelchair that his new duty is to climb stairs?

Firstly an employer must provide wheechair acess , they do not have to provide a chapel nor do they have to allow for others bigotry , based on their beliefs relgious belief while can be cripeling is not a disability


'

JimiTime wrote: »

Its just a belief'. IT IS NOT though.

it is just a belief nothing more nothing less and the public should not have to put up with the results of it




'

JimiTime wrote: »

Well the state has encouraged and helped Christianity flourish, so whatever way you paint it, it IS different. It is engrained in our culture. It IS different to whatever other scenario you wish to raise.

Ireland is one of the fastest growing seculer states in the world "it's called change"

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

No, she certainly DOES want to do her job. However, the employer has now said that her duties as a registrar include conducting civil union ceremonies.

Yes, and her job is to perform and record civil transactions of the State. That has not changed

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it reasonable to tell a man confined to a wheelchair that his new duty is to climb stairs?

Yes, if he is a stairs delivery man.

This woman's job is to carry out the registration requirements of the UK. If she refuses to do this, for what ever reason, that is her issue. That was her job, it has always been her job.

If she thought the parameters of her job were never going to change with new laws and regulations that speaks more to gross nativity on her part than to anything the UK government has done.

Who thinks when they enter a job they will be doing the exact same thing they are doing now in 16 years?

JimiTime wrote: »

It certainly isn't, and the fact that there is a very simple compromise available its even sadder.

It is not a compromise. It is an exception based on religious grounds, which is unfair and illegal.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is a person here. A person who can do her job, but has been asked to 'walk up the stairs'. When she says, 'but I can't, though I can continue the good work I've done for 16 years', is met with a, 'Cybermen' response of 'YOU MUST COMPLY'. Its an extremely cold way of doing things.

Of course it was met with that, it is her job.

You make it sound like this woman is a lost little puppy.

JimiTime wrote: »

To ask someone to compromise it is like asking, 'could you just remove your leg please'.

If she cannot perform the job she is hired to do she leaves the job.

No one would expect a message delivery service to pay a crippled man to sit around the office all day doing nothing because he can't ride a bike.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its entered in, so that we don't have to deal with muppets and their hypothtical, 'What about me and my pink unicorn who get offended by chinese people'.

Unfortunately the UK civil service does have to deal with such "muppets" who think they can get paid to do a job they don't actually do.

Civil services across Europe have enough problem dealing with fake illness and benefit fraud without adding this sort of nonsense to the mix.

It used to be I can't come into work because I'm sick, you are still going to pay me though, right?

Now it is I can't come into work because I have strong ethical objections to what I'm supposed to do, you are still going to pay me though, right?

JimiTime wrote: »

Well the state has encouraged and helped Christianity flourish, so whatever way you paint it, it IS different. It is engrained in our culture. It IS different to whatever other scenario you wish to raise.

Not in the scenario of modern liberty and civil rights.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, if he is a stairs delivery man.

I respectfully decline to continue this arguement with you. I think antisceptic handled the 'Smackin' arguement better than me after I opted out. Maybe someone will do the same here, as I don't think I can.

sbsquarepants

crotalus667 wrote: »

, although one must questen some one's belief that there enternal soul is a t risk if they even have to think about the choice

eternal damnation or a job as a civil servent

You hit the nail on the head there, if i genuinely believed i would burn for all eternity if i done whatever, i wouldn't really need to mull it over. I think the op is trying their best to follow rules that they know deep down, don't really make sense.
You wont burn for officiating at this ceremony, you might not like it, or wont to do it, but you don't believe you'll burn for it, so therefore it is nothing more than a simple personal prejudice and like any other prejudice, it is unfair and should in no way be supported in law, christians are no more or less "special" or "entitled" than gays, or any other group.
There is plenty of room in this world for all of us!

--amadeus--

An employer will of course try and roster sensitively. But there will come a day when there are holidays, sickness and a rush of same sex civil partnerships and this hypothetical person has to either suck it up or refuse to do her job.

If she refuses to do the job she is paid for she has to face disciplinary action, up to and including the sack.

Why is that such a controversial idea?

And that is over and above the lawsuit in waiting that would arise from a same sex couple being refused a ceremony.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

This question is borne out of the 'Christian privilages' thread. Basically the questions arise as follows.

I am a Christian who has been a registrar for 16 years. The law has now redefined my job to entail conducting same sex services. What do you think the Christian should do?

Is there an issue conducting such services?

You do your job. If you don't want to do your job then you either resign or you get fired. Sounds fair enough to me.

Once you start putting in clauses for moral objections, where does it stop?

Let's say I, as an evangelical pastor, want to mail out some literature advertising my church. The postman, however, is a devout Catholic who doesn't agree with what my church teaches. When he became a postman he was living in a clear Catholic moral majority - he never expected to have to deliver dirty heretical Protestant literature.

So, is our postman justified in refusing to delliver my mail? No! I am entitled to the same rights and access to the postal serviceas any other citizen - and if he can't handle that then he has no business being a postman. The same applies to your registrar.

We could list many other similar instances. Can a Muslim working in the Charities section of the Revenue Commissioners be permitted to refuse to handle a claim for tax relief on donations given to the Humanist Association of Ireland? Can a Pioneer in the Motor Tax Office refuse to process the tax disc for a delivery truck belonging to a brewery? No. If you are a public servant then you serve all the public, not just those whose actions you approve of.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

You do your job. If you don't want to do your job then you either resign or you get fired. Sounds fair enough to me.

I'm not going to get into the 'Where will it stop' territory, as I think its the most lazy of reasoning. However, I'll ask the following.

Is it ok for a christian to perform a gay marriage/union ceremony?

Ickle Magoo

Heartlessness doesn't come into it, registrars aren't employed out of the goodness of the civil service' heart. They get a wage packet for carrying out a specific job, they don't get to turn down tasks due to faith any more than their employers can pick and choose staff based on faith. It's not heartless to expect staff to have a modicum of professionalism or find a job that suits their sensitivities better.

phelixoflaherty

Do your job.

Victor

Can (Christian) registrars reconcile a civil marriage with their religious beliefs? There is an exception to this for certain religions (and indeed some Christian denominations) where the religious ceremony isn't recognised by the state, so I specifically say Christian.

johnfás wrote: »

all clergy are entitled to act in the role of civil registrar in their own church.

Only certain religions are recognised by the state in Ireland for the purpose of recording marriage.

johnfás wrote: »

Let us turn to what Civil Partnership is not and what a registrar does not do. First, civil partnership has nothing to do with sexual activitity. The State does not endorse, or indeed condemn, any form of sexual activity inside or outside of a relationship. The issue is entirely moot as the State is neutral. Secondly, the registrar to a civil marriage or a civil partnership, does not bless or in any other way endorse those two people who are entering into such a partnership.

Whatever about Civil Partnership, Marriage has always been seen in the eyes of the state about having children. that has certain implications about sex.

PDN

Victor wrote: »

Only certain religions are recognised by the state in Ireland for the purpose of recording marriage.

No, that used to be the case up until a few years ago, but that piece of discrimination was thankfully discarded.

Today any religion is free to apply to the General Registrars Office to have their ministers recognised as marriage solemnisers. And, if you check out the GRO's website, you can download a list of thousands of solemnisers from just about every religion, denomination and sect you ever imagined existed in Ireland plus a few more.

It should also be pointed out that these marriage solemnisers are free to choose and refuse who they want to conduct weddings for.

Jimitime wrote:

Is it ok for a christian to perform a gay marriage/union ceremony?

Are you talking about OK legally? Any gay marriage ceremony performed in Ireland will have no legal standing in Ireland whatsoever as marriage in this State is purely seen as something that is contracted between one man and one women.

Or OK morally? IMHO, a marriage of a same-sex couple has no business in a church since it is contradicting Christian teaching.

But a legal union, or civil partnership, is a different thing. That is a civil matter, unrelated to Christian marriage or the Church, and a registrar is expected to do the job they are paid to do. If their conscience bothers them that much then the decent thing to do would be to resign.

Jimitime wrote:

I'm not going to get into the 'Where will it stop' territory, as I think its the most lazy of reasoning.

No, it's the opposite of lazy. It's taking the initial logic used by the objectors and then applying it to other scenarios. It's doing the hard work of testing our moral claims to see if we are truly consistent or are hypocrites.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it ok for a christian to perform a gay marriage/union ceremony?

Would it alter things significantly if the word 'civil' were inserted on front of marriage/union? If we follow things along a bit, the question becomes "what has a non-Christian marriage/union got to do with Christian conscience?"

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote:

Or OK morally? IMHO, a marriage of a same-sex couple has no business in a church since it is contradicting Christian teaching.

Wait, I thought it was homosexual acts that went against Christian's teaching.
Becoming legal partners is not exactly a homosexual act is it?

PDN

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Wait, I thought it was homosexual acts that went against Christian's teaching.
Becoming legal partners is not exactly a homosexual act is it?

And becoming legal partners is something entirely different from marriage (which is what I was posting about).

People don't get married so they can live an asexual lifestyle (even if some of them eventuallly end up doing just that).

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote: »

And becoming legal partners is something entirely different from marriage (which is what I was posting about).

People don't get married so they can live an asexual lifestyle (even if some of them eventuallly end up doing just that).

Well yeah but they are going to have sex regardless of whether or not they are seen as a legal couple. Stopping them from being recognised isn't going to stop them from doing it. So why is it even an issue?

PDN

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Well yeah but they are going to have sex regardless of whether or not they are seen as a legal couple. Stopping them from being recognised isn't going to stop them from doing it. So why is it even an issue?

Because, by definition in the Bible, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. Therefore same-sex unions are the State's business, not the Church's.

Now how about we stick to the thread topic which is about civil partnerships?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Because, by definition in the Bible, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. Therefore same-sex unions are the State's business, not the Church's.

Now how about we stick to the thread topic which is about civil partnerships?

Is it morally ok for a Christian to perform a same sex ceremony?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it morally ok for a Christian to perform a same sex ceremony?

As a civil registrar? Absolutely. Just as moral as issuing a tax disc for a brewery vehicle, or handling the tax codes for a pyschic fortune teller.

However, those who think doing their job is immoral have the freedom to resign. That's the beauty of living in a democracy.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

As a civil registrar? Absolutely.

I suppose it would be hypocritical if you or the EA refused to carry out such unions after saying the Christian position is to back the bill. You would have no issue if you as a registered solemniser, were asked to perform a homosexual union ceremony. Your issue is just that you wouldn't do it in your capacity as a minister. Have I got that clear? If the bill comes in, you would be happy to carry out these ceremonies if asked, just not in your capacity as a churchman?

Do you simply view such things in a legal fashion and remove all faith and concience from it? I.E. Its the same as being a solicitor witnessing the signing of a contract?

I think if there is clear evidence for the Christian, that there should be no issue, then that makes a big difference to the validity of the objection.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

I suppose it would be hypocritical if you or the EA refused to carry out such unions after saying the Christian position is to back the bill. You would have no issue if you as a registered solemniser, were asked to perform a homosexual union ceremony. Your issue is just that you wouldn't do it in your capacity as a minister. Have I got that clear? If the bill comes in, you would be happy to carry out these ceremonies if asked, just not in your capacity as a churchman?

No, it wouldn't be hypocritical at all, because I am not a registrar - I am a solemniser of marriages. Therefore I do not register births, deaths or civil partnerships. I marry people - and I don't get paid a penny for doing so.

The law states that as a solemniser I am authorised to conduct marriages that conform to the rites and ceremonies of my church - and the State then recognises such marriages as legal. As such I can pick and choose who I want to conduct weddings for.

I think you're missing the point, Jimi. There are lots of things that I find morally objectionable that I nevertheless think should be legal in society. But I am under no obligation to participate in them. Of course if you choose to take the State's shilling then you are obliged to fulfill the duties necessary to earn that shilling.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

The law states that as a solemniser I am authorised to conduct marriages that conform to the rites and ceremonies of my church - and the State then recognises such marriages as legal. As such I can pick and choose who I want to conduct weddings for.

Really? So you cannot act as a solemniser outside the realm of your church? I was under the impression that the difference between a Solemniser and a registrar was that a solemniser simply has the legal authority to unite a couple in marriage? Am I right in saying that you only have the right to carry out marriages 'Within your church'? That they 'must' be religious? I.E. If two atheists (Hetero) said 'Would you come to such and such a place and conduct a marriage ceremony', that you couldn't?

I think you're missing the point, Jimi. There are lots of things that I find morally objectionable that I nevertheless think should be legal in society.

Who mentioned anything about legality? I have asked you (Nothing to do with it being legal), if you think its morally objectionable for a Christian to carry out a homosexual marriage/union?

You replied that its not. However, you seem to be saying its not if you are already a civil registrar. IF YOU could 'choose' to carry out civil unions outside of your church, would you? If not, then why not?

Of course if you choose to take the State's shilling then you are obliged to fulfill the duties necessary to earn that shilling.

I actually agree with that. In this 'Been a registrar for 16 years, but they've just dramatically redefined one of my duties' case though, I believe that there is a human element to be considered. The attitude that you and others have encouraged I find quite cold. 'Rules are rules, like it or p!ss off'. I personally see how in this case they could be easily accomodated. Rules or not, I'd prefer to encourage a bit more than heartless legalistic attitudes.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Really? So you cannot act as a solemniser outside the realm of your church? I was under the impression that the difference between a Solemniser and a registrar was that a solemniser simply has the legal authority to unite a couple in marriage? Am I right in saying that you only have the right to carry out marriages 'Within your church'? That they 'must' be religious? I.E. If two atheists (Hetero) said 'Would you come to such and such a place and conduct a marriage ceremony', that you couldn't?

The state licenses me to conduct marriages according to the beliefs and ceremonies of my church. Civil (ie non-religious) marriages can only be conducted by registrars. As far as I'm aware the Humanist association of Ireland is treated as a religion in thids respect.

I could, legally, marry two atheists if they were willing to be married according to the ceremonies of my church. However, in practice that will never happen since I would be facilitating them in telling lies by making vows that refer to an entity that they don't believe in.

Who mentioned anything about legality? I have asked you (Nothing to do with it being legal), if you think its morally objectionable for a Christian to carry out a homosexual marriage/union?

I can't even begin to imagine why a Christian would want to carry out such a union in a non-legal sense. The civil partnership bill is about legal status - so that's the only context in which those unions exist in my book. It is similar to me saying that I believe Hindus should have the right to get married - but I will never personally conduct such a Hindu ceremony.

You replied that its not. However, you seem to be saying its not if you are already a civil registrar. IF YOU could 'choose' to carry out civil unions outside of your church, would you? If not, then why not?

No, I wouldn't choose to carry out such unions because I'm not a registrar. Civil unions are nothing to do with me.

If I was a registrar then I would do my job or resign.

I actually agree with that. In this 'Been a registrar for 16 years, but they've just dramatically redefined one of my duties' case though, I believe that there is a human element to be considered. The attitude that you and others have encouraged I find quite cold. 'Rules are rules, like it or p!ss off'. I personally see how in this case they could be easily accomodated. Rules or not, I'd prefer to encourage a bit more than heartless legalistic attitudes.

It has to be legalistic, because it is a legal issue.

In the church I believe in grace not legalism, but when it comes to the law of the land then it is right to be legalistic. You should be legalistic about making sure your car is taxed and insured. Judges should be legalistic about deciding cases according to the law. And registrars should be legalistic about providing services to everyone in the State equally.

Max Power1

PDN wrote: »

But a legal union, or civil partnership, is a different thing. That is a civil matter, unrelated to Christian marriage or the Church, and a registrar is expected to do the job they are paid to do. If their conscience bothers them that much then the decent thing to do would be to resign.

.

+1

(i never thought I would ever thank a post made by PDN in the christianity forum, but theres a first for everything)

As a civil cervant you are paid to do your job, If some belief of yours "commands" you not to do some facets of the same job then by all means resign!

PDN

Max Power1 wrote: »

(i never thought I would ever thank a post made by PDN in the christianity forum, but theres a first for everything)

It's the beginning of a slippery slope!

Gurgle

Max Power1 wrote: »

i never thought I would ever thank a post made by PDN in the christianity forum, but theres a first for everything

Me too, its like an itchy feeling in the spine....

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

The state licenses me to conduct marriages according to the beliefs and ceremonies of my church.

So, like a civil registrar can't mention anything that may be taken as religious, you MUST be religious. Is that correct? I.E. You can't go and carry out a wedding, and not mention your religion?

Civil (ie non-religious) marriages can only be conducted by registrars.

That is my confusion. I was under the impression that if you are an authorised Solemniser, you are given authority to act for the state. The religious element, I thought, was your choice.

I could, legally, marry two atheists if they were willing to be married according to the ceremonies of my church. However, in practice that will never happen since I would be facilitating them in telling lies by making vows that refer to an entity that they don't believe in.

Of course. I didn't realise that you HAD to make it religious. I thought you could actually carry out the civic side of it, and it would be recognised. Ye learn something new everyday.

I can't even begin to imagine why a Christian would want to carry out such a union in a non-legal sense.

Sorry, I didn't realise that as a solemniser you HAD to do a religious ceremony.

The civil partnership bill is about legal status - so that's the only context in which those unions exist in my book. It is similar to me saying that I believe Hindus should have the right to get married - but I will never personally conduct such a Hindu ceremony.

I'm assuming that you wouldn't be allowed conduct a hindu ceremony anyway, is that correct? Just to confirm again, you are not authorised to carry out a ceremony unless it includes your religions ceremony?

No, I wouldn't choose to carry out such unions because I'm not a registrar. Civil unions are nothing to do with me.

Again, I thought you could still 'choose' to leave out the religious stuff, and simply do the civil side of the ceremony. I.E The part of the ceremony required by law.

If I was a registrar then I would do my job or resign.

And just to be clear, you see no reson why a Christian, who happens to be a registrar, should have any issue conducting a homosexual union?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

And just to be clear, you see no reson why a Christian, who happens to be a registrar, should have any issue conducting a homosexual union?

We all have 'issues' with certain circumstances, but I would expect their duty to their employers to override those issues.

Let's try a different example. If a 80 year old man wanted to marry an 18 year old girl, I would see that as being distinctly creepy. I can't imagine myself conducting a wedding for such a couple. But a registrar would have to conduct the civil ceremony, irrespective of their personal feelings about the union.

Fanny Cradock

There is an interesting report, written by Rodger Trigg, entitled Free to believe available at the Theos website. It might be of interest to people in this debate.

This new report, written by Roger Trigg, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Warwick, tackles the silent downgrading of religious rights in contemporary Britain. It argues that human beings are naturally religious animals and have a prima facie natural right to freely exercise their religion, which should not simply to be equated with the right to free speech.

P.S. It's a long read.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

We all have 'issues' with certain circumstances, but I would expect their duty to their employers to override those issues.

Let's try a different example. If a 80 year old man wanted to marry an 18 year old girl, I would see that as being distinctly creepy. I can't imagine myself conducting a wedding for such a couple. But a registrar would have to conduct the civil ceremony, irrespective of their personal feelings about the union.

It is not sinful for an 80 year old man to marry an 18 year old girl as far as I'm aware. This isn't about someone who happens to go 'ooh, I don't like that, so I'm not doing it'. Its about being a Christian, and asking if ones duties contradict your faith. I've simply asked you if conducting a homosexula union ceremony is against ones Christian faith? Forget the resigning etc, I'm asking if there is a Christian position on this? IIRC, You have said in the past, in the thread about the EA, that the Christian position is to back the homosexual union bill, so would I be right in saying that a Christian should have no problem conducting such ceremonies? I'm not talking about in a religious sense, just in a civil sense.

Victor

JimiTime wrote: »

And just to be clear, you see no reson why a Christian, who happens to be a registrar, should have any issue conducting a homosexual union?

If they have a religious issue, surely they should have a similar issue with a non-religious marriage?

PDN wrote: »

Let's try a different example. If a 80 year old man wanted to marry an 18 year old girl, I would see that as being distinctly creepy.

But who would be exploiting who?

JimiTime

Victor wrote: »

If they have a religious issue, surely they should have a similar issue with a non-religious marriage?

Not at all. Marriage is marriage. Godly marriage is about the hearts of those getting married. Its got absolutley zippo to do with ceremony, and who says 'You are now man and wife'. There are those who get married in churches who have no idea what it is to be truly married, and those who are married in civil services who have more of a handle on marriage than those who embark on all the religious ceremony.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

You have said in the past, in the thread about the EA, that the Christian position is to back the homosexual union bill, so would I be right in saying that a Christian should have no problem conducting such ceremonies? I'm not talking about in a religious sense, just in a civil sense.

No, I can see that some Christians may have a problem with conducting such ceremonies.

Think of it this way. I am totally opposed to any kind of occultic activity. But, I think it would be profoundly unChristian to have legal bans against horoscopes, fortune tellers and the like. Indeed, I would argue that the Christian position would be to support religious freedom - including freedom for witches. But that does not mean that I would be happy to have any personal involvement with such things.

rantyface

Would the OP not also see heterosexual civil unions outside Christian marriage as sinful?

JimiTime

rantyface wrote: »

Would the OP not also see heterosexual civil unions outside Christian marriage as sinful?

By heterosexual civil union, I gather you mean a civil marriage? A few people have alluded to this. That there is some kind of 'difference' in the legitimacy of the marriage depending on who conducts it. There really isn't. Marriage, in Christian terms, is the joining of a man and a woman. Its more than a contract, its more than legalities, its more than who conducts the ceremony and its more than ceremony itself. From a Godly perspective, I was married over a year before my wedding ceremony. The marriage ceremony is a societal thing. If I was in a jungle somewhere, I wouldn't require any ceremony. In our societal culture however, there are certain customs we follow. Then of course there is the legal entity of being married.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

No, I can see that some Christians may have a problem with conducting such ceremonies.

So you don't see a 'Christian position' on it? Its down to the individual?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

By heterosexual civil union, I gather you mean a civil marriage? A few people have alluded to this. That there is some kind of 'difference' in the legitimacy of the marriage depending on who conducts it.

Not really, different in legitimacy of the marriage if God is not a part of it.

Say I'm getting married and I'm a die hard atheist who rejects the very notion of God. Should this woman be able to refuse to marry me and my wife because we are not being married in the Christian sense, ie it isn't a contract between me my wife and God? Its me my wife and the State. The State recognizes the marriage but God sure doesn't. In the Christian sense we are still unmarried fornicators.

If not then what is the difference between that and a homosexual couple getting married.

mcmickey

God created man and woman to nourish the family ethos. Same-sex relationships contradict God’s design for marriage. Their can be no justification for it, it will just help to distabilise society even more.

smokingman

mcmickey wrote: »

God created man and woman to nourish the family ethos. Same-sex relationships contradict God’s design for marriage. Their can be no justification for it, it will just help to distabilise society even more.

Uh oh, you're new here so expect some fire to your flame....

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really, different in legitimacy of the marriage if God is not a part of it.

Say I'm getting married and I'm a die hard atheist who rejects the very notion of God. Should this woman be able to refuse to marry me and my wife because we are not being married in the Christian sense, ie it isn't a contract between me my wife and God? Its me my wife and the State. The State recognizes the marriage but God sure doesn't. In the Christian sense we are still unmarried fornicators.

If not then what is the difference between that and a homosexual couple getting married.

Again, where does this notion of God not recognising the marriage come from? Is that a catholic thing or something? Do people actually believe that God only approves of church weddings or something? 'Marriage' in a Christian sense is about hearts, not pomp and ceremony. Its about a man and a woman becoming one entity. God doesn't care that you got reverand such and such to conduct a ceremony. He cares that you are committed to the love of your husband or wife, and that your hearts are truly joined. The ceremony is mostly just a public declaration, and a legal requirement. The wedding can change from culture to culture. What does not change however, is what the marriage truly is in a Godly sense.

mcmickey

smokingman wrote: »

Uh oh, you're new here so expect some fire to your flame....

Most of the world's largest religions generally view homosexuality negatively, we all cannot be wrong. The sexual orientation is an unfortunate product of nature and not a sin, but it is to engage in homosexual sexual activity is a sin, not the sexual orientation.

smokingman

mcmickey wrote: »

Most of the world's largest religions generally view homosexuality negatively, we all cannot be wrong. The sexual orientation is an unfortunate product of nature and not a sin, but it is to engage in homosexual sexual activity is a sin, not the sexual orientation.

Can you point that out in the bible please?